Thread View: comp.lang.asm370
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by NEWS
Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:45
L/LTR vs ICM
Author: 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.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads