Andrew Haley wrote:
> ami_stuff wrote:
>>
>> Dnia 13 lipca 2009 16:35 Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>>
>>> ami_stuff wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, so it is a GCC's bug?
>>>>> It's perhaps an optimization that gcc doesn't do. But then
>>>>> there is an infinite number of optimizations that gcc doesn't do.
>>>> How should I modify GCC's inline to repleace MULH function (to make it compatible)?
>>> What for? I posted sample code that should work.
>> Could you tell me what I do wrong?
>
> Not until you tell me about the results from the code I posted! :-)
>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>>
>> #define MULH_ORG(a,b) (((int64_t)(a) * (int64_t)(b))>>32)
>>
>> #define MULH_ASM(xh, xl, a, b)
>
> This won't work because xh and xl are outputs.
Like this:
inline int xxMULH(int a, int b)
{
uint32_t au = a;
uint32_t bu = b;
uint32_t resh, resl;
umul_ppmm(resh, resl, au, bu);
if (a < 0)
resh -= bu;
if (b < 0)
resh -= au;
return (int)resh;
}
Andrew.
