I'm concerned about code duplication.
Why can't our intrinsic header be used on host machines???
On 2009-12-07, at 11:16 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Why should I bother reimplementing the intrinsics yet another time for different compilers in host headers? and what about compiling on a non-x86 linux machine? This code is portable and serves it's pupose very well. Or are you seriously concerned about the performance?
Alex Ionescu schrieb:
So? Use intrinsics anyways.
Or __builtin_clz...
On 2009-12-07, at 10:07 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Because this is a host module.
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Well why this then? They should be intrinsics...
On 2009-12-07, at 8:43 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
> +unsigned char BitScanForward(ULONG * Index, unsigned long Mask) > +{ > + *Index = 0; > + while (Mask && ((Mask & 1) == 0)) > + { > + Mask >>= 1; > + ++(*Index); > + } > + return Mask ? 1 : 0; > +} > + > +unsigned char BitScanReverse(ULONG * const Index, unsigned long Mask) > +{ > + *Index = 0; > + while (Mask && ((Mask & (1 << 31)) == 0)) > + { > + Mask <<= 1; > + ++(*Index); > + } > + return Mask ? 1 : 0; > +} > >
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Best regards, Alex Ionescu
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Best regards, Alex Ionescu