n I came up with it (couple of years ago),
so it may not be that widespread.
I also have routines to convert 32 and 64 bit numbers to arbitrary base
without using division but again, they are heavily reliant on the cheap
32x32->64 multiply and cheap 64-bit shifts.
Zoltan
deal with HW a lot,
i.e. low level embedded system and device driver designers. Outside of
that circle the suggested behavior would have only a little performance
benefit.
Zoltan
y nothing in return.
For resource constrained embedded systems built around one of those
32-bit cores arm-elf is actually rather more attractive than arm-eabi.
Zoltan
have much more
> detrimental overall effect than alignment of doubleword quantities,
> which in my experience are pretty rare to start with.
Well, I have to agree with the above.
Zoltan
a warning (which it does not, not even
with -W -Wall -Wextra).
Zoltan
;s
written, it could be done in 20 words instead of 30.
Is it a problem that is worth being put onto bugzilla or I just have to do
some trickery to save the compiler from being smarter than it is?
Zoltan
Thanks,
Zoltan
ow that (int) b is restricted to
the range of [0,65535] which it can safely compare against the range of
[0,0xu]?
Thanks,
Zoltan
Correction:
The construct gcc complains about is not
if ( a < b ) ...
but
if ( a < b - ( b >> 2 ) ) ...
but still the same applies. The RHS of the > operator can never be
negative or have an overflow on 32 bits.
On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 10:40:06 +1100
Zoltan Kocsi wrote:
> G
