Paul asks an excellent question:

> >A great performance hint: OCTCOMP and ALLOCATE fcopy!
>
> I've always been curious.  If 'octcomping' a CM run module is supposed to
> improve performance why doesn't HP ship 'octcomped' versions of their utilities
> that are still in CM.

I don't know the answer, but I've been recommending to vendors for years
that they OCTcomp their CM programs because it's important for *them* to
do the testing!  Sure, the program files are a lot bigger (8 to 10 times!),
but DDS tapes and disk drives are relatively cheap.

Why have the vendor test?  As I pointed out before, the OCTCOMP is a
*compiler*.  Compilers have been known to have bugs, even OCTCOMP.  I'd
rather have the vendor use *their* validation suites to test the
OCT'd program than have *my* data be the test bed :)

BTW, we always do:

   :newgroup cm
   :copy fcopy.pub, fcopy.cm
   :octcomp fcopy.cm, fcopy.pub

(or similar)

Note: I don't recommend OCT'ing the CMSTORE program...the last time
I did that (over 10 years ago), the result corrupted file labels
when I ran it.

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html