RE: RPG III program calls faster than RPG IV????

However, now that I think about it some more....I'm not sure it does make sense.

The call from the PEP to the UEP is a bound call, correct? We've already seen that 50M bound calls
only takes 4s.

So I could see ILE taking 66s, vs OPM 62. But there must be something else about the ILE start up
that causes ILE to take twice as long as OPM.

Charles Wilt
--
Software Engineer
CINTAS Corporation - IT 92B
513.701.1307

wiltc@xxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Scott Klement
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:52 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: RPG III program calls faster than RPG IV????

OPM calling OPM is creating one call stack entry each time.
ILE calling ILE is creating two call stack entries each time. One for
the PEP, one for the UEP.

So it seems reasonable to me that ILE calling ILE would take about twice
as long.



Wilt, Charles wrote:

OPM calling OPM 6s 62s
Dynamic Program Call 12s 122s
Bound Procedure 1s 4s

--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.