By "signed" do you mean simply that "result is negative if sign bits are different, else positive"? Or are you trying to account for overflow somehow? -Nate Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > > I'm looking for a signed 16x16 => 32 multiplication routine. Currently I'm > using the 16x16 => 32 unsigned routine with the absolute values of the > operands, and adjust the sign of the result if necessary. But this quite some > overhead. > > Is there a fast way to do it, for example by accounting for the sign in the > shift-and-add loop? I've tried to find a solution myself, but all I came up > with was extending the addition to 32 bits to keep the information about > signedness, and this is at least as slow as using absolute values and negating > the result. > > Regards > > > Uz > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2009-11-05 18:00:04
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.