Hi Bill,> I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of > having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in > some way. I'm not sure about Ada, but I don't know of a "rotate" > operator for any of the C variants, or any other high-level language..Ada has rotate. Ciao, Duncan.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:> Hi Bill, > >> I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of >> having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in >> some way. I'm not sure about Ada, but I don't know of a "rotate" >> operator for any of the C variants, or any other high-level language.. > > Ada has rotate. >Ada has so much. :-) How do you stand on the "LLVM IR-level rotate instruction" issue? Has it been a pain for you to produce good code without it? -bw
> > Ada has rotate. > > > Ada has so much. :-)Too right :)> How do you stand on the "LLVM IR-level rotate > instruction" issue? Has it been a pain for you to produce good code > without it?Nope. In the cases I've looked at (not many!) it produced a rotate machine operation in the final assembler. Ciao, Duncan.