Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- From: "William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:58:29 GMT
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p7dod314t207iqabivuinitgdsj44pt2jg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:22:35 -0500, Robert <no@xxxxxx> wrote:<snip>
There may be other good reasons to go to display but if you are using
a z series computer (latest evolution of the IBM 360), packed decimal
is still faster than display. Most results depend on the computer
architecture. I suspect in answer to your next question that
alignment still matters on some currently sold computers with an
architecture different from the ones tested on.
Clark,
Robert was clear (in his first note) that he was quoting efficiency
recommendations FROM a Micro Focus manual and that was the ONLY compiler that he
was talking about.
I wouldn't assume that either any recommendations OR test results would
necessarily be "portable" across compilers or operating systems.
Whether I think his test were ore were not "comprehensive" - I do think that he
was fair in applying rules from the documentation for a specific compiler and
O/S to that combination and then reporting the results he got.
I could ALMOST guarantee, that I could get different results (even with MF on
differen platforms - and with different directives) much less on zSeries.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
.
- References:
- Cobol Myth Busters
- From: Robert
- Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- From: Clark F Morris
- Cobol Myth Busters
- Prev by Date: Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- Previous by thread: Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- Next by thread: Re: Cobol Myth Busters
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|