RE: One byte integer

That generalization is highly dependent on the architecture of the processor. The generalization is mostly based on the behavior of intel 8086-family chips that only had 16-bit numeric registers. Doing eight-bit arithmetic with a 16 bit register required a couple extra ops to handle overflow. This was in a time when those extra ops took time. With current Power technology, all that is parallelized in multiple processor pipes optimized by advanced compilers and I doubt if there's any performance impact at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Bronski
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:13 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: One byte integer

Does anyone know what the performance considerations might be on using a char instead of an int? I know it's a generalization but usually int processing is faster than shorts and chars. Not sure if this has any application here, just curious.

In 3/26/2013 3:27 PM, Luis Rodriguez wrote:

Rob,

I believe that the OP stated somewhere that he needed to store a
number between 0 and 100. An one-byte integer field could allow
between -127 and
128 if signed and between 0 and 255 if unsigned.

Regards,
Luis Rodriguez
IBM Certified Systems Expert - eServer i5 iSeries

--
Need secure FTP? Forget PASE...get your FREE sFTP here www.arpeggiosoftware.com
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.