3 ms·

Why not just (a >> 1) + (b >> 1) + (a & 1) & (b & 1)

• dreamcompiler 5y ago
  That's the "patented solution" referred to in the article.
  • andi999 5y ago
    Which is shocking to me, since this is the solution which jumps immediately to mind (and usually patents should be above that line). I could understand if the next solution was patented, but not this one.
    • dheera 5y ago
      Don't read the article, and you would never know it's patented.
• Dylan16807 5y ago
  "just"? That's 2 additions, 2 shifts, and 2-3 bitwise operations, while the other method is 1 addition, 1 shift, and 2 bitwise operations.
  • rustybolt 5y ago
    I would think optimizing compilers can optimize this expression to the one in the article, but I tried it on godbolt and they don't.