HP3000-L Archives

November 1997, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stan Sieler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Stan Sieler <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:42:40 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
Paolo asks:

> I have some programs that use some routines (which i haven't the source)
> compiled in compitibility mode, put in an SL library.
> In your opinion its better to compile all the programs in CM or use
> the interface for the switch from NM to CM, using for example SWAT ?
> Is this interface heavy for the system ?

Using Bill Lancaster's favorite answer:

It depends.



It depends on the percent of time you spend in the SL routines versus
the time you spend in the rest of the program.

A switch from NM to CM is the expensive switch;  a switch from CM to NM
is inexpensive (comparatively).


At the minimum, try running the SL and the CM programs through the
Object Code Translator:

   (for program FOO)

   :rename FOO, FOOCM                 (save original program)
   :octcomp FOOCM, FOO


   (for SL SL.PUB.SALES)

   :rename sl, slcm
   :octcomp slcm, sl

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2