RE: Efficiency of Bound vs. Dynamic Calls

["Kahn, David [JNJFR]" <DKahn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

Just a tiny quibble with your description of a dynamic call...

>If you leave LR off then you have to go through the
>initialzation subroutine forward.

The *INZSR subroutine will be performed on the first call only. Therefore if
you're coding a called program it makes sense to put as much of the
initialisation as possible into the *INZSR subroutine and avoid using a
conventional subroutine for first time processing.

Dave Kahn
Johnson & Johnson International (Ethicon) France
Phone : +33 1 55 00 3180
Email :  dkahn1@jnjfr.jnj.com (work)
           dkahn@cix.co.uk      (home)


-----Message d'origine-----
De: Eric N. Wilson [mailto:doulos1@home.com]
Date: 09 September 1999 03:12
À: RPG400-L@midrange.com
Objet: Re: Efficiency of Bound vs. Dynamic Calls


Dynamic calls are just that (Dynamic) calling a ILE program dynamically
incurs the same penalty as calling an OPM program. (Possibly worse I have
not benchmarked this personally.) Any dynamic call has to do name resolution
(Find the program), then load the program into memory,  do any address
fixups, then initialize static storage, do implicit file opens, call any
*INZSR and then jump to the mainline code.  If the program sets on LR then
you will get to do the same steps over and over and over each time you call
the program. If you leave LR off then you have to go through the
initialzation subroutine forward.
+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---