3 ms·

Dude, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about C, the language, not what one particular implementation gives you. AFAIK, C11 doesn't have a

by zvrba 14y ago

Dude, YOU have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about C, the language, not what one particular implementation gives you. AFAIK, C11 doesn't have a 128-bit int type, so how do you get the full result of 64x64 bit multiply? How do you access the carry flag? The overflow flag? Etc.

colanderman 14y ago
The C language doesn't, and has never, said anything about what the assembled code should look like. If you want performance, you have to use a good compiler. That's true with any language. You're right, C11 doesn't have a 128-bit integer type; that should be remedied. Fortunately all major compilers (GCC, LLVM, VC++, and ICC) provide one. Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. Overflow: "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. And the best part is, code written like this is portable to architectures such as TileGX that don't have status flags.
- zvrba 14y ago
  > Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. If x and y are signed, you're relying on UB, which the compiler might optimize out. > "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. Again, which type are x and y? If signed, this code is UB. If unsigned, then the result of conversion to int32 may not fit into int32, in which case the result is implementation-defined, or and implementation-defined signal is raised. Portable? Right.
- zvrba 14y ago
  > Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. If x and y are signed, you're relying on UB, which the compiler might optimize out. > "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. Again, which type are x and y? If signed, this code is UB. If unsigned, then the result of conversion to int32 may not fit into int32, in which case the result is implementation-defined, or and implementation-defined signal is raised. Portable? Right.

by zvrba 14y ago

colanderman 14y ago

The C language doesn't, and has never, said anything about what the assembled code should look like. If you want performance, you have to use a good compiler. That's true with any language. You're right, C11 doesn't have a 128-bit integer type; that should be remedied. Fortunately all major compilers (GCC, LLVM, VC++, and ICC) provide one. Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. Overflow: "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. And the best part is, code written like this is portable to architectures such as TileGX that don't have status flags.

zvrba 14y ago
> Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. If x and y are signed, you're relying on UB, which the compiler might optimize out. > "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. Again, which type are x and y? If signed, this code is UB. If unsigned, then the result of conversion to int32 may not fit into int32, in which case the result is implementation-defined, or and implementation-defined signal is raised. Portable? Right.
zvrba 14y ago
> Carry: "if (x + y < x)" compiles to code that uses the carry flag. If x and y are signed, you're relying on UB, which the compiler might optimize out. > "if ((int32_t) (x + y) < 0)" compiles to code that uses the overflow flag. Again, which type are x and y? If signed, this code is UB. If unsigned, then the result of conversion to int32 may not fit into int32, in which case the result is implementation-defined, or and implementation-defined signal is raised. Portable? Right.