This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: question regarding div / std::div implementation
- From: Daniel Gutson <daniel dot gutson at tallertechnologies dot com>
- To: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:55:25 -0300
- Subject: Re: question regarding div / std::div implementation
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAF5HaEXKZ7j-gbZPiWPhDpx7=R0zm1xYvXNYCNUMG4WeZS532Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <5717DF65 dot 5060606 at linaro dot org> <CAF5HaEWdpAGiXtCO36u3F0QGAXfVHL+qkY+RLsszpv7paPVdMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5717E68D dot 2020905 at linaro dot org> <CAF5HaEWuSS7dEEM6ogU6TCqQ-Y7OM9DC1HFCeuuAGL0vKtL2Kw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5717EB44 dot 5020508 at linaro dot org> <CAF5HaEVWnU9_8Ae3gCR9Ns8sD_B8QoD794sp59XQNrqEw034EQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5717F6BD dot 90705 at cs dot ucla dot edu>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Paul Eggert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 02:15 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> OK with no inline asm, but a libcall might be expensive specially in a
>> tight loop and messes with predictions;
>> a builtin is nonportable as well.
> In practice, C programs that need integer quotient and remainder typically
> don't call 'div'. They just use % and /, and compilers are now smart enough
> to do just one machine-level operation to get both quotient and remainder.
> For example, time/offtime.c has this macro:
> #define DIV(a, b) ((a) / (b) - ((a) % (b) < 0))
> which should work just fine as-is. In theory one could change this to use
> div/ldiv/lldiv, but why bother making the code way more complicated?
I personally see the macro above more complicated to read that a
simple function call with a meaningful name.
int foo(int x, int y)
if (x > 0 && y > 0)
return x * y * foo(x - 1, y - 1);
int addqr2(int x, int y)
const int quot = x / y;
int something = x + y - 2 * x * y;
int something_else = something * foo(x + 1, y + 1);
const int rem = x % y;
return quot + rem + something_else;
That fools the compiler. Moving the % just below the / induces the
optimization; but we'd be relying on a weak pattern recognition. Code
should not rely on that IMHO.
Anyway I already filed the issue to the gcc bugzilla, and if people
agrees there, I will ask them to assign it to someone of my team.
> As the 'div' function family was designed back when C compilers were not
> that smart and is largely obsolete now, simplicity would appear to be more
> important than performance here. Perhaps someone someday will work up the
> energy to get 'div' removed from the C standard.
Daniel F. Gutson
San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5
Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211