_asm and or one of those pseudo-assembler/library routines like __tr() for more machine instructions.
Yes, overhead is definitely a negative for calls, especially if (like some of us) you have not exactly gotten around to embracing XPLINK. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is there a "reverse bits" hardware instruction? There's a RLLG instruction to rotate the bits in a 64-bit integer. I know that you want to call such a routine from C/C++. If you need to write ffs64() in assembler you may find the linkage overhead of calling the routine is far greater than a slower implementation that has been inlined. It's about time IBM enhanced C/C++ to support __asm for non-Metal/C compiles. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
