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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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.