On 2014-03-31 17:46 -0400, lennox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Does anyone have any idea as to how one could write an Autoconf test to > check whether long long (or int64_t, or whatever) is implemented natively, > and so is likely to be fast, as opposed to being emulated by the compiler as > a pair of 32-bit values? [...] > (The motivation is tight-loop math operations that on 32-bit architectures > can be implemented more efficiently than using most compilers' generic > emulated 64-bit math routines, but on 64-bit architectures should just use > native 64-bit operations.) Even if a CPU has instructions which perform 64-bit integer operations, there is no guarantee that they are fast. Have you looked at existing free math packages to see if they have any relevant tests? It sounds like in your case the penalty for choosing wrong is simply reduced performance. So if I were implementing this, I would start by adding a user switch like --enable-64bit-ops (AC_ARG_ENABLE[1]) to allow the user to force the selection one way or the other. You may decide that this is sufficient. For a better "out of the box" experience you can implement an automatic default selection based on heuristics (such as the tests described in your original mail, but I also suggest looking at AC_CANONICAL_CPU[2] and $host_cpu). Since the user can always override it, it's not the end of the world if your heuristics choose the slower option, and they can be improved as necessary. [1] https://gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#AC_005fARG_005fENABLE [2] https://gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#index-AC_005fCANONICAL_005fHOST-1925 Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
