On 09/06/11 17:19, Ron Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Martin S. Weber<[email protected]> wrote:
(and many, many, many, many more lines like that). This seems to be because
of the calls to asm() ... I don't know how to fix that. FYI, after
preprocessing, the first instruction of line 104 looks like:
qq[4]+=((qq[1]&(qq[2]^qq[3]))^qq[3])+(block[0] = (({ unsigned
int y; asm("rorl" " %1,%0" : "=r" (y) : "I" (8), "0" (block[0]));
y; })&0xFF00FF00) |(({ unsigned int y; asm("roll" " %1,%0" :
"=r" (y) : "I" (8), "0" (block[0])); y; })&0x00FF00FF))+0x5A827999+({
unsigned int y; asm("roll" " %1,%0" : "=r" (y) : "I" (5), "0"
(qq[0])); y; });
The asm() calls are being used to invoke the rotate instructions.
I understood that part. I don't know how to fix the asm() calls so they'll
work in a C89 environment. If Joerg is correct, then a clever compiler would
generate equivalently fast code anyways. Which leaves the question of whether
we want to worry about the dumb/less optimizing compilers or stick to the
coding style guidelines. If you can make the asm cooperate with C89, that
would be the best choice, wouldn't it?
Regards,
-Martin
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
