On 21 April 2006 01:10, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Yet it would seem to me at first glance that, since dividing unsigned by
>> an exact power-of-2 can be optimised to a right shift, and since we can
>> deduce
>
> You might like to build yo
On 20 April 2006 18:28, Kimmo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello, gcc-hackers!
>>
>> This is somewhat chopped-down from the original code it began life as, but
>> it serves to illustrate the point.
>>
>> unsigned int PhyFrameConfig (unsigned int channel
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Yet it would seem to me at first glance that, since dividing unsigned by an
> exact power-of-2 can be optimised to a right shift, and since we can deduce
You might like to build yourself a new compiler. :)
2006-04-19 Alan Modra <[E
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
Hello, gcc-hackers!
This is somewhat chopped-down from the original code it began life as, but
it serves to illustrate the point.
unsigned int PhyFrameConfig (unsigned int channelPrf, unsigned int bpp,
unsigned int bufferSize)
{
unsigned int prfShif
On 20 April 2006 17:01, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Yet it would seem to me at first glance that, since dividing unsigned by
>> an exact power-of-2 can be optimised to a right shift, and since we can
>> deduce that (1 << bpp) is always
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:52:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Yet it would seem to me at first glance that, since dividing unsigned by an
> exact power-of-2 can be optimised to a right shift, and since we can deduce
> that (1 << bpp) is always going to be a power-of-2
Isn't that true only if bpp
