Re: Call C from RPG performance -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: Call C from RPG performance
From: Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:19:48 -0600 (CST)
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>


To RPGLE->CLE call takes more than 100 times long than RPGLE-RPGLE.


Is this a program call or a subprocedure call?

Are both the CLE and RPGLE objects that you're calling defined with thesame activation group? Are they both *CALLER?

If you're testing a C program that's ACTGRP(*NEW) vs. an RPG programthaqt's ACTGRP(*CALLER) then you're not comparing apples to apples. Makesure both programs are the same before comparing them.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.