John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > Shift a bit until it becomes greater than (or less than) the number > > in question. > > ummm, didn't you read his post?? he wanted a O(1) routine, NOT a O(n) > routine... That technique is O(ln(n)), where n is the number in question. Frankly, for numbers up to 32, a table will wield the best results, and might actually be smaller than some of the suggestions given so far. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Come on. - Where are we going? - To get what you came for. - What's that? - Me. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- from number to power of two Nick Hibma
- Re: from number to power of two Leigh Hart
- Re: from number to power of two Luigi Rizzo
- Re: from number to power of two Patryk Zadarnowski
- Re: from number to power of two Johan Karlsson
- RE: from number to power of two Don Read
- Re: from number to power of two Warner Losh
- Re: from number to power of two John-Mark Gurney
- Re: from number to power of two Mark Murray
- Re: from number to power of two John-Mark Gurney
- Re: from number to power of two Daniel C. Sobral
- Re: from number to power of two Kazufumi-MIT-Mitani
- Re: from number to power of two Nick Hibma
- Re: from number to power of two Peter Dufault
- Re: from number to power of two Nick Hibma
- Re: from number to power of two Brian F. Feldman
- Re: from number to power of ... Ollivier Robert
- Re: from number to power of two Peter Wemm
- Re: from number to power of two Tommy Hallgren
- Re: from number to power of two Bakul Shah