linux-kernel - Re: Alternative implementation of the generic _

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1208566724.4891.25.camel@localhost>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:58:44 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>
Cc:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative implementation of the generic __ffs

On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 17:20 -0700, dean gaudet wrote:
> any reasonable compiler should figure out the two are the same... but i 
> really prefer spelling out the lack of dependencies of the computations by 
> breaking it out per-bit.

It seems gcc 4.3 (-Os or -O2) isn't a reasonable compiler.

I think this might be best:

int ffs32(unsigned int value)
{
	int x;

	value &= -value;
	if (!(value & 0x55555555))
		x = 1;
	else
		x = 0;
	if (!(value & 0x33333333))
		x |= 2;
	if (!(value & 0x0f0f0f0f))
		x |= 4;
	if (!(value & 0x00ff00ff))
		x |= 8;
	if (!(value & 0x0000ffff))
		x |= 16;

	return x;
}

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/