http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-23 22:54:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > Ok... thanks Marc for handling this. If we could handle in the same way > div(long long, long long), it would be great and more consistent. Are we sure > we can't? It needs lldiv_t. > Also, too bad that we don't use llabs (and lldiv) as implementation details > when safe, it would be more consistent with the long overloads. I seemed to > remember that we were already doing that. I was a bit surprised to see that indeed. For llabs: why bother, it isn't like there is anything fancy llabs could be doing. Is the point that with -Os, a call to llabs is slightly shorter than an inlined version? We could use llabs when safe, it's just more macros... For lldiv: glibc's implementation does more than a simple / and % (the behavior of div with negative numbers is more strictly standardized than that of / and %, so on some platforms the adjustment may be needed, but I don't know if such platforms are still used). On the other hand, gcc doesn't have a builtin for it, so if we call lldiv, it can never be inlined.
