| Clark F Morris 2006-08-09, 6:55 pm |
| This is a belated response to a previous posting and I am concerned
about some of the code generated. If I were the systems programmer, I
would be reporting a defect. My comments are interspersed below.
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:40:10 -0300, Clark Morris <cfmtech@istar.ca>
wrote:
[color=darkred]
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:16:24 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
If your shop is afflicted with CSP - Cross System Product, Visual Gen
or possibly some other 4th generation packages which force F zones on
positive numbers I strenuously recommend NUMPROC(MIG). This still has
relatively efficient sign handling but doesn't give certain nasty
results.[color=darkred]
The loads probably are irrelevant to the question and for
addressability only.[color=darkred]
Here I would expect a PACK, CP (compare packed) generation since
negative zero is theoretically possible. If I were the systems
programmer at the shop I would APAR the code.[color=darkred]
Same comment as above.[color=darkred]
In this and the following a LOAD, LTR combination might be faster
although in 99 percent of the cases no one would notice the
difference. As I recall twos complement, I don't think there can be a
negative binary zero.[color=darkred]
Here I would expect a CP and APAR the code if in charge. Negative
zero is possible as is an F zone if the file was messed with by Visual
Gen (previously known as CSP).[color=darkred]
|