2011/6/8 Chris Bandy cba...@jbandy.com
On 06/08/2011 06:38 AM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
Here is the v4 patch.
Benjamin
As an uninformed bystander, I have some nitpicks that may just be coding
style.
From the patch:
+ if (x = 1)
+ return 1;
I think it would make more sense
On 06/08/2011 06:38 AM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
Here is the v4 patch.
Benjamin
As an uninformed bystander, I have some nitpicks that may just be coding
style.
From the patch:
+ if (x = 1)
+ return 1;
I think it would make more sense to move this above the #ifdef and not
duplicate it
Looks ok to me.
I think it might actually be ok to omit the version check, we use
__builtin_popcount without it too (and that seems to be gcc 3.4 too, so
presumably gcc 3.4 is a requirement).
So what about __builtin_clz optimized logbase2 :-)
I think that should just be
31 - __builtin_clz(n | 1)
Le 06/06/2011 17:34, Roland Scheidegger a écrit :
Am 05.06.2011 03:55, schrieb Benjamin Bellec:
Le 05/06/2011 03:05, Matt Turner a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/06/2011 06:09, Matt Turner a écrit :
Also, if you want to check if the
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 06/06/2011 17:34, Roland Scheidegger a écrit :
Am 05.06.2011 03:55, schrieb Benjamin Bellec:
Le 05/06/2011 03:05, Matt Turner a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
Le
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
So here is a v2 patch with a builtin GCC optimization which is the
fastest (thx Matt to point me to this solution).
From patch:
+ return (1 (32 - __builtin_clz(x - 1)));
I don't know if the use of gcc guarantees that int will
Am 06.06.2011 23:18, schrieb Tormod Volden:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
So here is a v2 patch with a builtin GCC optimization which is the
fastest (thx Matt to point me to this solution).
From patch:
+ return (1 (32 - __builtin_clz(x - 1)));
I don't
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2011 04:40 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
On 06/02/2011 03:18 PM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
It's me again, with a new minor optimization for the
util_next_power_of_two()
Le 03/06/2011 01:40, Brian Paul a écrit :
I'd like to avoid the warning if at all possible. If you replace (val
32) with (val (sizeof(unsigned) * 4)) does that silence it?
Yes it fix, but as Matt Turner said, it's not necessary to check this.
Btw we don't check that in the other functions.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/06/2011 06:09, Matt Turner a écrit :
Also, if you want to check if the value is already a power-of-two,
instead of a case statement for every POT (including 0), just do the
standard is-power-of-two check:
(x (x
Le 05/06/2011 03:05, Matt Turner a écrit :
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/06/2011 06:09, Matt Turner a écrit :
Also, if you want to check if the value is already a power-of-two,
instead of a case statement for every POT (including 0), just do
It's me again, with a new minor optimization for the
util_next_power_of_two() function.
This patch implements a faster algorithm, still taken from Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_two#Algorithm_to_round_up_to_power_of_two
).
But especially, I added the most common values used by
On 06/02/2011 03:18 PM, Benjamin Bellec wrote:
It's me again, with a new minor optimization for the
util_next_power_of_two() function.
This patch implements a faster algorithm, still taken from Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_two#Algorithm_to_round_up_to_power_of_two
).
But
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Benjamin Bellec b.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
But there is an issue, during compilation there is an error (-Wall)
warning: right shift count = width of type [enabled by default].
This doesn't make any sense since I don't think the unsigned int type
is ever 8 bytes:
14 matches
Mail list logo
