Re: Call C from RPG performance -- RPG400-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Call C from RPG performance
From: Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:48 -0600 (CST)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>


To RPGLE->CLE call takes more than 100 times long than RPGLE-RPGLE.


Is this a program call or a subprocedure call?

Are both the CLE and RPGLE objects that you're calling defined with thesame activation group? Are they both *CALLER?

If you're testing a C program that's ACTGRP(*NEW) vs. an RPG programthaqt's ACTGRP(*CALLER) then you're not comparing apples to apples. Makesure both programs are the same before comparing them.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.