Re: One byte integer

Dan,

Agreed and I would bet the performance tools would be unable to detect it unless there were a very significant number operations against that type of field. That tooling is the best in the business, but that's just too small to capture without the overflow exceptions and/or wait states for some reason.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 3/26/2013 10:37 AM, Dan Kimmel wrote:

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

--