Re: Alternative implementation of the generic __ffs

[Harvey Harrison]

On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 17:58 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 17:20 -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> > any reasonable compiler should figure out the two are the same... but i 
> > really prefer spelling out the lack of dependencies of the computations by 
> > breaking it out per-bit.
> 
> It seems gcc 4.3 (-Os or -O2) isn't a reasonable compiler.
> 
> I think this might be best:
> 
> int ffs32(unsigned int value)
> {
> 	int x;
> 
> 	value &= -value;
> 	if (!(value & 0x55555555))
> 		x = 1;
> 	else
> 		x = 0;
> 	if (!(value & 0x33333333))
> 		x |= 2;
> 	if (!(value & 0x0f0f0f0f))
> 		x |= 4;
> 	if (!(value & 0x00ff00ff))
> 		x |= 8;
> 	if (!(value & 0x0000ffff))
> 		x |= 16;
> 
> 	return x;
> }
> 

That produces the shortest assembly for me, also uses the fewest
registers.

Harvey

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/