Re: Z-ADD or Eval?

[Jim Langston <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Z-Add being faster than Move all has to do with the assembly language
instruction.  Z-Add actually maps to a specific assembly langauge instruction,
which was called ZADD, I believe, in the 80x86 series of chips, probably the
same in the IBM chip (Motorolla?)

I don't know what happened to the Z-Add instruction on the new RISC chips,
or even if it's faster anymore. But we are talking like 2 or 3 chip cycles 
anyway.

The reason I'm not using %Found and such is because I'm on V3R7M0 and
it doesn't seem to have them.

Okay, I'll go with the Eval.

Incedently, who do you use 0 instead of *Zero?  *Zero is just easier for me to 
read.

Regards,

Jim Langston

Scott Klement wrote:

> Ummm...  why would Z-Add be more efficient than MOVE? That seems odd to
> me.  Math is slower than just moving bytes around...
>
> Your code doesn't look modern to me because it uses an indicator :)
> You should find a way to do this that doesn't involve an indicator.
>
> If you're only doing a single line of code (as in your examples) I find
> conditioning indicators to be just as good as if statements.  But, if
> you're going to do more than one line of code conditioned on that same
> indicator, the "if" technique is better.
>
> This is how I code things like that, when I _must_ use indicators:
>
> c   99              eval       EqSize = 0
>
> or:
>
> c                   if         *in99
> c                   eval       EqSize = 0
> c                   endif
>
> I doubt I'll ever use Z-ADD again.  :)
>

+---
| 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
+---