3 ms·

I don't think you need branches, you can just add in the output of the correct lte (which returns 0 or 1) as the extra carry in.

• Annatar 7y ago
  Was that even English? You know processors aren't supposed to be this difficult that your skull explodes, correct?
  • Taniwha 7y ago
    doesn't matter if the compiler understands it
  • rstuart4133 7y ago
    Perhaps not normal English. But to those of us who have written a lot of assembler is was plain enough. Every heard two medical doctors discuss a patient? It's the same phenomenon. Every processor architecture (and computer language for that matter) has it's own idiosyncrasies, every assembler programmer builds up a repertoire of sequences for handling them over time. It was plain he was giving you one of those sequences, and it is pretty obvious how to apply it. Oh, and to answer your question: being simple to understand is _not_ a design criterion for processors. We've been there, done that with the VAX and later the iAPX32. It wasn't a success. We've since settled on what they are supposed to be: efficient in terms of silicon and power consumption. Architectures that win those races will be here in the long term. The VAX and iAPX32 were poor at it, and died. x86 is grimly holding onto it's niche, but I don't expect that to last. It has already lost the consumer market as most consumers use ARM now.