 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]cc: (bcc: Mark Wilkinson/UK/EU/SPE) Subject: Humor vs. Humour Tony Peters wrote > P.S. I had a hard time getting HUMOR past my spellchecker, eh! As a member of the Centre for Proper Spelling I must take the Yanks to task. Johnson's dictionary came out about seven years before Webster's. Just because you win one bloody war doesn't give you the right to change the language. [...]49_24Nov199914:52: [log in to unmask] |
| Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:18:43 +0100 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I posted a similar question ~2 years ago, regarding Fortran code
compiled with ;INFO="symdebug xdb on" and linked with ',xdbend.lib.sys'.
The answers I got (and from my live experience of then) indicated that
it did matter performance-wise (no mention of crash). The reasons being:
1) the running program needs to extensively check if there is a
breakpoint set
2) no optimization can be made by the compiler
this, of course, is highly application-dependent and I'm not sure
applicable to your situation. You can check the thread above in the
archives, the subject was 'xdb-info and performance'
hth
/per
--------------------------------------------
Per Ostberg / [log in to unmask]
phone +46-8-58581213 / fax +46-8-58587710
Huddinge University Hospital
ChemLab / C1 74 / S-141 86 HUDDINGE / SWEDEN
--------------------------------------------
> A couple of years ago when working with Cobol, we purchased a product
called
> TRAX. I remember reading that you should remove the SYMDEBUG from the
> $Control line of the program when moving the program back to
production(due
> to potential system crash?). Now, I'm getting noise from the
programmers
> here who say they routinely put programs in production without regard
for
> what is on the $control line and no problems. Are the programmers
correct in
> saying there is no effect? If not, what symptoms should I look for?
>
|
|
|
