Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!pasteur!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: bizarre instructions
Message-ID: <11457@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 26 Feb 91 19:21:49 GMT
References: <9102220245.AA14853@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <10278@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <6870@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Lines: 16

In article <6870@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
[ Chris Torek's example of how to do optimal "divrem" in gcc ]
|> On the other hand, I have to agree with Torek about the implementation on
|> a given machine.  This must depend on the hardware.  But I can hope, with
|> Silverman, that if the language allows writing things like this, hardware
|> people might put them in.
|> 
|> A question for Torek:  Suppose I want to do the above for a variety of
|> types, for example, have A, B, C, D, and F floating, but E integer.  Can
|> I use the same overloaded operator symbol in both cases with his approach?
|> Can I do even more complicated overloaded situations, where the translation
|> needs to take into account the types?

I'm not Chris Torek, but the answer is: yes you can, with g++.  g++ accepts
exactly the same code Chris wrote for gcc, and, since it is a C++ compiler,
allows functions and operators to be overloaded based on argument type.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com