> I think I would handle it that way: > 1* v = (v >> 1) & 0x07. > 2* v & 0x04 ? -> 3 > v & 0x02 ? -> 2 > else -> 1 > > Basically this means the following conversion table, if I'm not > mistaking: > 0..2 -> 1 (div=2) > 3..4 -> 2 (div=4) > 5+ -> 3 (div=8) > > Should be fast and efficient enough, and keeps the code clear (IMHO > at least). In fact it isn't, since large values (>8) will lead to random divs. Maybe the following is better: if (v >= 8) v = 3; else if (v >= 4) v = 2; else v = 1; Fast enough and much more readable IMHO. Sorry for my initial bogus idea. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
