Article View: comp.lang.asm370
Article #328L/LTR vs ICM
From: NEWS
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:45
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:45
21 lines
1372 bytes
1372 bytes
This is posted for Robert Bernecky (rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.com), who wrote the following: a. In any of the S/370s I have used (any of them up to the 3084), ICM timed slower than L/LTR, EVEN WHEN there was no other instruction between the L and the LTR. This is similar to MCVL/CLCL vs MVC/CLC loops (when you didn't need the overlap case, which we often did in APL), where the page or so of code to setup the MVC/CLC loop and the final/first EX Rx,doclc usually ran about TWICE as fast as the single MCVL/CLCL instruction. It made a RISC convert outa me, it did, it did... b. I suspect that if you could schedule the L/LTR properly by moving the L earlier (or the LTR later) in the instruction stream, they would run even faster than ICM. c. ICM can't be indexed, which makes it even lousier than L/LTR. I would have preferred LC (Load Character) and IB (Insert Bits). See B5500 book. Sigh.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9208181835.AA20343@nettlerash.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCF1VM.BITNET!NEWSShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!UCF1VM.BITNET!NEWS From: NEWS@UCF1VM.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370 Subject: L/LTR vs ICM Message-ID: <9208181835.AA20343@nettlerash.berkeley.edu> Date: 18 Aug 92 17:45:06 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: IBM 370 Assembly Programming Discussion List <ASM370%UGA.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU> Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 21