On Jul 27 13:24, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 27/07/17 13:13, Eric Blake wrote:
> 
> > On 07/27/2017 03:06 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Huber<sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de>
> > > ---
> > >   newlib/libc/misc/ffs.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/newlib/libc/misc/ffs.c b/newlib/libc/misc/ffs.c
> > > index ba5700920..a09cbd3bb 100644
> > > --- a/newlib/libc/misc/ffs.c
> > > +++ b/newlib/libc/misc/ffs.c
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,17 @@ No supporting OS subroutines are required.  */
> > >   int
> > >   ffs(int i)
> > >   {
> > > +#ifdef __LP64__
> > > +	/* GCC would expand the __builtin_ffs() to ffs() in this case */
> > > +	int bit;
> > > +
> > > +	if (i == 0)
> > > +		return (0);
> > > +	for (bit = 1; !(i & 1); bit++)
> > > +		i = (unsigned int)i >> 1;
> > > +	return (bit);
> > If we're going to open-code it to work around the compiler creating an
> > infloop recursion to ffs(), at least code a straight-line version
> > without branches, rather than the painfully slow bit-by-bit loop.
> > There's plenty of examples on the web of writing ffs() by using
> > bit-twiddling without branching.
> 
> This is roughly the same implementation we had before. I do not intend to
> optimize this.

Still, __LP64__ is unacceptable.  Cygwin would be affected by this as
well and would have to revert to its former own ffs implementation.

Reverting to a C-based implementation should only be performed on a
case-by-case basis.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat