From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ff6e0c3de8331c0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: sub-optimal code for packed boolean arrays -- bug or inherent
 limitation
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:59:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1183449559.774375.229380@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
References: <1183404856.375083.160890@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.122.158.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1183449560 20746 127.0.0.1 (3 Jul 2007 07:59:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:59:20 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1183404856.375083.160890@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.122.158.4;
   posting-account=CZAoAgwAAAD9ntJQ85OlWL0_Q5EFdzP_
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16391
Date: 2007-07-03T00:59:19-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

...
> The only notable exception is procedure Flip, which becomes
>
> procedure Flip(B : in out Bitboard_T; I : in Index_T) is
>   30:   89 f1                   mov    %esi,%ecx
>     begin
>         B(i) := not B(i);
>   32:   48 c7 c0 fe ff ff ff    mov    $0xfffffffffffffffe,%rax
>   39:   48 d3 c0                   rol    %cl,%rax
>   3c:   48 21 f8                   and   %rdi,%rax
>   3f:   48 d3 ef                    shr    %cl,%rdi
>   42:   83 f7 01                   xor    $0x1,%edi
>   45:   83 e7 01                  and    $0x1,%edi
>   48:   48 d3 e7                  shl     %cl,%rdi
>   4b:   48 09 f8                   or      %rdi,%rax
>     end;
>   4e:   c3                             retq
>
> instead of the shorter
>
> mov  %esi,  %ecx
> mov  0x1,   %rax
> shl    %cl,    %rax
> xor    % rax, %rdx
> retq
>
> I don't know much (if anything) about compiler internals, so I was
> wondering if I should file a bug report. Is there some good
> theoretical justification for all that extraneous shifts and
> rotations? I would think that if the compiler can figure out the best
> way to set or clear a bit in a register using shift and logical ops,
> than it should also be able to negate it efficiently.

Did you time both codes ? Often a much shorter code is not faster at
all.
BTW, you can also do assembler insertions with Ada (although it would
be a pity if you had to).

G.