COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: Jeff Campbell on 25 Sep 2007 02:40 Robert wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:30:07 -0400, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >> news:3kcaf394t2qabq20kh2beeu413ujua7gp6(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:20:19 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:09:16 GMT, "William M. Klein" >>>>> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>>>>> news:i3j6f3pa7ucignv34t4oklno0ht8jh2c5p(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:21:35 GMT, "William M. Klein" >>>>>>> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> I and Richard posted facts showing speed is the same. We have not seen >>>>>>> facts >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> mainframe-land,except a five year old study. Just post some facts and >>>>>>> skip the >>>>>>> ad homina. >>>>>> I do NOT have personal access to an Enterprise V3.4 COBOL compiler - >>>>>> and I do >>>>>> believe what IBM says about its performance (and don't believe that you >>>>>> know how >>>>>> they implement all their syntax -> machine code). HOWEVER, >>>>>> >>>>>> If you create a source program that you think tests subscripts vs >>>>>> indexes >>>>>> (whether it is comprehensive or not), then I think some CLC person >>>>>> might compile >>>>>> and run it for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, please create and post a sample program that cleanly >>>>>> compiles with >>>>>> the Micro Focus directives: >>>>>> NOMF DIALECT(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are not using a current-enough version of Server Express to >>>>>> include >>>>>> support for the DIALECT directive, then use: >>>>>> NOMF ENTCOBOL FLAG(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) ARITHMETIC(ENTCOBOL) >>>>>> PERFORM-TYPE(ENTCOBOL) >>>>> That's not necessary. The code I posted is Standard-compliant except for >>>>> comp-5, which we >>>>> all know IBM can handle. >>>> No, it wasn't. Such things as mixed sectioned, non-sectioned code; exit >>>> section statements not in separate paragraphs; linkage section declared >>>> without a using clause in the procedure division. I could go on. >>> Those things were in the first test, named speed1. The subscript v. index >>> test, named >>> speed2, does not have them. >>> >>> The current '02 Standard does not prohibit any of the things you >>> mentioned. Especially, it >>> does not require exit section to be in a separate paragraph, nor under a >>> paragraph name. >>> >>>>>> If you post such a program and no one else in CLC compiles and runs it >>>>>> (and >>>>>> posts the results) I will find someone who can and will. >>>>> Any volunteers? >> Speed1 is the only program I saw posted. When did you post it? I just >> searched Google groups for "speed2" and got no hits. > > I TOLD them these damned computer things would never work, but they wouldn't listen. :) > > Here it is again. If your compiler doesn't support exit perform cycle, just take it out. > > > * ------ Speed of subscript v. index > ------------------------------------------------------ > * Findings > > * Index 23 > * Subscript 23 > * Subscript comp-5 23 > * Index 1 23 > * Subscript 1 18 > * Subscript 1 comp-5 18 > > > $SET SOURCEFORMAT"FREE" > $SET NOBOUND > $SET OPT"2" > $SET NOTRUNC > $SET IBMCOMP > $SET NOCHECK > $SET ALIGN"8" > identification division. > program-id. Speed2. > author. Robert Wxagner. > > data division. > working-storage section. > 01 test-data. > 05 comp5-number comp-5 pic s9(09) sync. > > 05 binary-number binary pic s9(09) sync. > 05 display-number pic 9(09). > 05 packed-number comp-3 pic s9(09). > 05 s-subscript binary pic s9(09) sync. > 05 test-byte pic x(01). > > 01 misaligned-area. > 05 array-element occurs 4096 indexed x-index. > 10 misaligned-number comp-5 pic s9(09). > 10 to-cause-misalignment pic x(01). > 05 byte-element occurs 4096 indexed x-index-1 pic x. > > 01 timer-variables. > 05 test-name pic x(30). > 05 repeat-factor value 100000000 binary pic s9(09). > 05 current-date-structure. > 10 pic x(08). > 10 time-now-hhmmsshh. > 15 hours pic 9(02). > 15 minutes pic 9(02). > 15 secs pic 9(02). > 15 hundredths pic v9(02). > 10 pic x(05). > 05 time-now pic 9(06)v99. > 05 time-start pic 9(06)v99. > 05 timer-overhead value zero pic 9(06)v99. > 05 elapsed-time pic s9(06)v99. > 05 elapsed-time-display. > 10 elapsed-time-edited pic z(05). > > > procedure division. > > initialize test-data, misaligned-area > > move 'Null test' to test-name > perform timer-on > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > compute timer-overhead = (time-now - time-start) > > move 'Index' to test-name > set x-index to 1000 > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if x-index = 1000 > set x-index up by 1 > else > set x-index down by 1 > end-if > move array-element (x-index) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > move 'Subscript' to test-name > move 1000 to s-subscript > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if s-subscript = 1000 > add 1 to s-subscript > else > subtract 1 from s-subscript > end-if > move array-element (s-subscript) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > move 'Subscript comp-5' to test-name > move 1000 to comp5-number > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if comp5-number = 1000 > add 1 to comp5-number > else > subtract 1 from comp5-number > end-if > move array-element (comp5-number) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > move 'Index 1' to test-name > set x-index-1 to 1000 > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if x-index-1 = 1000 > set x-index-1 up by 1 > else > set x-index-1 down by 1 > end-if > move byte-element (x-index-1) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > move 'Subscript 1' to test-name > move 1000 to s-subscript > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if s-subscript = 1000 > add 1 to s-subscript > else > subtract 1 from s-subscript > end-if > move byte-element (s-subscript) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > move 'Subscript 1 comp-5' to test-name > move 1000 to comp5-number > perform timer-on > perform repeat-factor times > if comp5-number = 1000 > add 1 to comp5-number > else > subtract 1 from comp5-number > end-if > move byte-element (comp5-number) to test-byte > exit perform cycle > end-perform > perform timer-off > > goback > > . timer-on. > perform read-the-time > move time-now to time-start > . timer-off. > perform read-the-time > compute elapsed-time rounded = ((time-now - time-start) > * 100000000 / repeat-factor) - timer-overhead > > if elapsed-time not greater than zero > move 'error' to elapsed-time-display > else > compute elapsed-time-edited rounded = elapsed-time * 10 > end-if > display test-name elapsed-time-display > . read-the-time. > accept time-now-hhmmsshh from time > *> move function current-date to current-date-structure > compute time-now = > ((((hours * 60) + > minutes) * 60) + > secs) + > hundredths > . > Here are the results I got: Null test 0 Index 24 Subscript 20 Subscript comp-5 20 Index 1 24 Subscript 1 20 Subscript 1 comp-5 20 Jeff ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: William M. Klein on 25 Sep 2007 02:44 Jeff, Where did you run your test (O/S, machine, and COBOL compiler)? -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Jeff Campbell" <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote in message news:1190702153_6619(a)sp12lax.superfeed.net... > Robert wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:30:07 -0400, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >>> "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>> news:3kcaf394t2qabq20kh2beeu413ujua7gp6(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:20:19 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:09:16 GMT, "William M. Klein" >>>>>> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:i3j6f3pa7ucignv34t4oklno0ht8jh2c5p(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:21:35 GMT, "William M. Klein" >>>>>>>> <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> I and Richard posted facts showing speed is the same. We have not seen >>>>>>>> facts >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> mainframe-land,except a five year old study. Just post some facts and >>>>>>>> skip the >>>>>>>> ad homina. >>>>>>> I do NOT have personal access to an Enterprise V3.4 COBOL compiler - and >>>>>>> I do >>>>>>> believe what IBM says about its performance (and don't believe that you >>>>>>> know how >>>>>>> they implement all their syntax -> machine code). HOWEVER, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you create a source program that you think tests subscripts vs >>>>>>> indexes >>>>>>> (whether it is comprehensive or not), then I think some CLC person might >>>>>>> compile >>>>>>> and run it for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore, please create and post a sample program that cleanly compiles >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the Micro Focus directives: >>>>>>> NOMF DIALECT(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are not using a current-enough version of Server Express to >>>>>>> include >>>>>>> support for the DIALECT directive, then use: >>>>>>> NOMF ENTCOBOL FLAG(ENTCOBOL) FLAGAS(S) ARITHMETIC(ENTCOBOL) >>>>>>> PERFORM-TYPE(ENTCOBOL) >>>>>> That's not necessary. The code I posted is Standard-compliant except for >>>>>> comp-5, which we >>>>>> all know IBM can handle. >>>>> No, it wasn't. Such things as mixed sectioned, non-sectioned code; exit >>>>> section statements not in separate paragraphs; linkage section declared >>>>> without a using clause in the procedure division. I could go on. >>>> Those things were in the first test, named speed1. The subscript v. index >>>> test, named >>>> speed2, does not have them. >>>> >>>> The current '02 Standard does not prohibit any of the things you mentioned. >>>> Especially, it >>>> does not require exit section to be in a separate paragraph, nor under a >>>> paragraph name. >>>> >>>>>>> If you post such a program and no one else in CLC compiles and runs it >>>>>>> (and >>>>>>> posts the results) I will find someone who can and will. >>>>>> Any volunteers? >>> Speed1 is the only program I saw posted. When did you post it? I just >>> searched Google groups for "speed2" and got no hits. >> >> I TOLD them these damned computer things would never work, but they wouldn't >> listen. :) >> >> Here it is again. If your compiler doesn't support exit perform cycle, just >> take it out. >> >> >> * ------ Speed of subscript v. index >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> * Findings >> * Index 23 >> * Subscript 23 >> * Subscript comp-5 23 >> * Index 1 23 >> * Subscript 1 18 >> * Subscript 1 comp-5 18 >> >> >> $SET SOURCEFORMAT"FREE" >> $SET NOBOUND >> $SET OPT"2" >> $SET NOTRUNC >> $SET IBMCOMP >> $SET NOCHECK $SET ALIGN"8" >> identification division. >> program-id. Speed2. >> author. Robert Wxagner. >> >> data division. >> working-storage section. >> 01 test-data. 05 >> comp5-number comp-5 pic s9(09) sync. >> >> 05 binary-number binary pic s9(09) sync. 05 >> display-number pic 9(09). 05 packed-number >> comp-3 pic s9(09). 05 s-subscript binary >> pic s9(09) sync. 05 test-byte pic x(01). >> 01 misaligned-area. >> 05 array-element occurs 4096 indexed x-index. >> 10 misaligned-number comp-5 pic s9(09). >> 10 to-cause-misalignment pic x(01). 05 byte-element >> occurs 4096 indexed x-index-1 pic x. 01 timer-variables. >> 05 test-name pic x(30). >> 05 repeat-factor value 100000000 binary pic s9(09). >> 05 current-date-structure. >> 10 pic x(08). >> 10 time-now-hhmmsshh. >> 15 hours pic 9(02). >> 15 minutes pic 9(02). >> 15 secs pic 9(02). >> 15 hundredths pic v9(02). >> 10 pic x(05). >> 05 time-now pic 9(06)v99. >> 05 time-start pic 9(06)v99. >> 05 timer-overhead value zero pic 9(06)v99. >> 05 elapsed-time pic s9(06)v99. >> 05 elapsed-time-display. 10 elapsed-time-edited >> pic z(05). >> procedure division. >> initialize test-data, misaligned-area move 'Null test' to >> test-name >> perform timer-on >> perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times >> exit perform cycle >> end-perform >> perform timer-off >> compute timer-overhead = (time-now - time-start) move 'Index' to >> test-name set x-index to 1000 >> perform timer-on perform repeat-factor times >> if x-index = 1000 >> set x-index up by 1 >> else >> set x-index down by 1 >> end-if move array-element (x-index) to test-byte exit perform >> cycle end-perform >> perform timer-off move 'Subscript' to test-name move >> 1000 to s-subscript perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times if s-subscript = 1000 add 1 to >> s-subscript else subtract 1 from s-subscript >> end-if move array-element (s-subscript) to test-byte >> exit perform cycle >> end-perform >> perform timer-off move 'Subscript comp-5' to test-name >> move 1000 to comp5-number perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times if comp5-number = 1000 add 1 >> to comp5-number else subtract 1 from >> comp5-number end-if move array-element >> (comp5-number) to test-byte exit perform cycle >> end-perform >> perform timer-off move 'Index 1' to test-name set >> x-index-1 to 1000 perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times if x-index-1 = 1000 >> set x-index-1 up by 1 >> else >> set x-index-1 down by 1 >> end-if move byte-element (x-index-1) to test-byte exit perform >> cycle end-perform >> perform timer-off move 'Subscript 1' to test-name move >> 1000 to s-subscript perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times if s-subscript = 1000 add 1 to >> s-subscript else subtract 1 from s-subscript >> end-if move byte-element (s-subscript) to test-byte >> exit perform cycle >> end-perform >> perform timer-off move 'Subscript 1 comp-5' to test-name >> move 1000 to comp5-number perform timer-on >> perform repeat-factor times if comp5-number = 1000 add >> 1 to comp5-number else subtract 1 from >> comp5-number end-if move byte-element >> (comp5-number) to test-byte exit perform cycle >> end-perform >> perform timer-off goback >> . timer-on. >> perform read-the-time >> move time-now to time-start >> . timer-off. >> perform read-the-time compute elapsed-time rounded = ((time-now - >> time-start) >> * 100000000 / repeat-factor) - timer-overhead >> >> if elapsed-time not greater than zero >> move 'error' to elapsed-time-display >> else compute elapsed-time-edited rounded = elapsed-time * 10 >> end-if >> display test-name elapsed-time-display >> . read-the-time. >> accept time-now-hhmmsshh from time *> move function current-date to >> current-date-structure >> compute time-now = >> ((((hours * 60) + >> minutes) * 60) + >> secs) + >> hundredths . > Here are the results I got: > > Null test 0 > Index 24 > Subscript 20 > Subscript comp-5 20 > Index 1 24 > Subscript 1 20 > Subscript 1 comp-5 20 > > Jeff > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet > News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ > Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Robert on 25 Sep 2007 03:11 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:40:25 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >Here are the results I got: > >Null test 0 >Index 24 >Subscript 20 >Subscript comp-5 20 >Index 1 24 >Subscript 1 20 >Subscript 1 comp-5 20 Which CPU?
From: Jeff Campbell on 25 Sep 2007 03:23 William M. Klein wrote: > Jeff, > Where did you run your test (O/S, machine, and COBOL compiler)? > Same as speed the speed1 results I posted earlier: Machine is 600 MHz Alpha Personal Workstation running OpenVMS 7.3-1, COBOL compiler is HP COBOL for OpenVMS version 2.8-1286. Jeff ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Jeff Campbell on 25 Sep 2007 03:25
Robert wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:40:25 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: > > >> Here are the results I got: >> >> Null test 0 >> Index 24 >> Subscript 20 >> Subscript comp-5 20 >> Index 1 24 >> Subscript 1 20 >> Subscript 1 comp-5 20 > > Which CPU? Same as before with speed1, an Alpha Personal Workstation 600au running OpenVMS 7.3-1. Jeff ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |