On 28 March 2013 22:32, dw wrote:
On 3/28/2013 3:52 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
Why are those intrinsics even implemented using inline assembler
instead of GCC's own built-in functions like __builtin_ffs() for
_BitScanForward(), __sync_add_and_fetch() for _InterlockedAdd(), etc.?
Actually, I
I agree that where the code would really be suboptimal, the intrinsics
should be implemented using more efficient means. However, I doubt
that, e.g., _InterlockedAdd() has the same problem. Each intrinsic
should be evaluated separately.
Fair enough. When the first couple of intrinsics I
2013/3/29 dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com
While I haven't heard back from you about my response re volatile, I'm
going to go ahead and write my post about why I think my understanding
of the memory clobber is correct. Should give you plenty to think about
over the weekend.
Please take the
Please take the hostility down a notch. I don't see why it's necessary.
I apologize (to both you and Kai) if that's how this came across. That
was not my intent. I routinely use weekends to work on new puzzles.
The reason I suggested it would give him plenty to think about over the
weekend
Hello dw,
I try my best to read through your long e-mail ... (I want to get the
kudos ;) ). And thank you for reviewing this inline-assembler. This
is much appreachiated. Most of this stuff is implemented in a way it
works for me, but code didn't had a general review.
At the beginning I want
Why are those intrinsics even implemented using inline assembler
instead of GCC's own built-in functions like __builtin_ffs() for
_BitScanForward(), __sync_add_and_fetch() for _InterlockedAdd(), etc.?
--
VZ
--
Own the
Hello Kai. Thank you for the detailed response. It takes someone brave
to wade into a post that long.
To respond to your points:
I disagree here.
The cite from http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html
Well, it's good to know that we are (literally) on the same page about
where
Actually, I looked at doing just that. And while this is possible, my
experience suggest that gcc's built-ins don't do *quite* the same
thing. For example, __builtin_ffs() returns 0 if no bits are set, or
the 1-based bit position if a bit is set. BitScanForward return a BOOL
to indicate no
