Date:	Tue, 23 May 2000 14:49:53 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Dieter Buerssner <buers AT gmx DOT de>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bug 314
In-Reply-To:	<200005231106.HAA32744@delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000523144730.5702E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 23 May 2000, Dieter Buerssner wrote:

> On 23 May 00, at 12:06, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > The code seems consistent with C9X draft, as far as I could see, but
> > isn't it better to replace it with inline asm that does this in a
> > single instruction?
> 
> Gcc will usually produce only one idiv instruction for n/d; n%d pairs 
> for integer types smaller long long.

Sorry for not being clear.

First, I meant the long long version as well.  And second, I was thinking
about putting a fast inline version into stdlib.h as a macro, and making
the function versions use that macro as their body.  We do that for getc 
and putc, for example.

- Raw text -