On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote:
[...] > lsl r0, r0, #28 > asr r0, r0, #28 > bx lr > > But I doubt gcc could ever become that smart. Some pointed out to me that the tempting C equivalent (int)((unsigned)c << 28) >> 28 is invalid C, because the result of the unsigned->signed cast (needed to get arithmetic right shift) is undefined if the argument is > INT_MAX. Maybe that's why the eembc code is so verbose. Of course, that C snippet is often used in practice, and works on common architectures using a sane integer representation. Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
