Thanks John, I now know a bit more about this. It seems the 128bit support in windows and linux is done differently. I am told optimized routines inside the c library are used on linux but on windows support for divide is provided by compiler-rt and the code is very old and unoptimized. That given what you tell me I think my way forward is to try and get a better version of the divide routines working. Neill.
-----Original Message----- From: Boost-users <boost-users-boun...@lists.boost.org> On Behalf Of John Maddock via Boost-users Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 9:43 AM To: Neill Clift via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> Cc: John Maddock <jz.madd...@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [multiprecission] Large divides layered on 128 bit divides On 19/08/2021 23:02, Neill Clift via Boost-users wrote: > > Hi, > > The architecture of cpp_int being build on 64 bit arithmetic using 128 > bit double_limb_type is interesting. > > I have a question on the large divide (divide_unsigned_helper). It > uses the upper portions of the large integers to get an estimation of > the quotient. Subtracts out a multiple of that quotient and repeats. > > It does this in 128 bit values if available from the compiler: > > double_limb_type a = > (static_cast<double_limb_type>(prem[r_order]) << CppInt1::limb_bits) | > prem[r_order - 1]; > > double_limb_type b = py[y_order]; > > double_limb_type v = a / b; > > The compiler emulates this operation in the routine __udivmodti4 which > itself uses an iterative approach. > > It seems to use a pretty basic shift and subtract algorithm mind you. > > As a general rule for multiprecision is it OK to layer the Knuth like > algorithm D on top of each other this way. > > I have no idea myself but wonder if this is a known issue. I would > have guessed that it made sense to do a 64 by 64 bit divide to guess > the quotient and repeat. > Good question. As I recall I tried both single-limb and double-limb partial-quotients and the double-limb (128 bit) version was slightly faster. There is a balance here between removing as large a chunk as you can with each loop, compared to more expensive operations within the loop. You could for example, perform "Karatsuba-like" division by splitting a B-bit numerator into two B/2 chunks and perform schoolboy division on the two "digit" numbers. But the fact that no-one seems to have done this suggests how well it must work ;) On the other hand, __int128, while a synthetic type, is sufficiently well optimised for this to be a useful chunk size. HTH, John. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca715f27c760f4cd99de008d963f9de25%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637650747094109344%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=McX5CDu%2B1%2FEK7vSQ0y1Xoofq90wvebkry3YC%2FFaD1WY%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.boost.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fboost-users&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca715f27c760f4cd99de008d963f9de25%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637650747094109344%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=fqn6HAcLF5mlIpp%2FoEzohPe4G6N8CpFnTf8FyNFQxEE%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
