On Jul 27 14:33, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 27/07/17 14:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > --- > > > > > 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. > > Yes, so maybe something like this > > #if defined(__LP64__) && defined(__riscv) > > or a target-specific ffs.c file similar to memcpy.c, etc. I'm inclined to favor a target-specific file. This would also allow to implement the replacement in assembler easily. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat