This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
Hi, after reviewing this RFE again, we have determined that this is not inline with our near term road-map.
In addition, regarding point 1, currently there is no evidence that the suggested sequence would perform better.
Also, after reviewing points 2 and 3, we do not think this is something that can be done within the compiler.
As a result, this RFE is being rejected.
Thank you for the latest response. We are currently review it and will update the RFE once we have a response.
re 1) I understand that when the branch prediction is accurate the code with branching will be faster, but I am thinking more about the case of comparison functions - where the result is essentially random.
re 2) My concern was not just about the eyecatcher, but the entire process of establishing a new savearea. I understand that once the new savearea is created the eyecatcher must be filled in, I question the creation of the new stack entry in a leaf function that does not need/use it.
re 3) this is essentially an extreme case of point 2.
It looks like there are 3 issues being covered in this RFE:
1) The (current) Branch sequence vs. the branch-less sequence with the IPM/SLL/SRA
- We are not entirely convinced the suggest sequence would performance better.
ie, less instructions doesn't necessary mean faster code
2) The eyecatcher (ie. the setup of the function save area)
- We don't think this is something we can not generate.
It is as part of the MVS linkage convention for 64-bit.
Please refer to the following docs:
- Metal C Programming Guide and Reference (Function save areas)
- MVS Programming: Assembler Service Guide (Using a Caller-Provided Save Area)
3) saving/restore of 7 registers
- On the surface, we would agree r4 is probably not the best choice.
However, we would have to dig further to understand why r4 is picked.
#3 is the only part of the RFE that we may consider to accept.
Please let us know your thoughts. Thanks!
This RFE is still being investigated and requires more time.