Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:38:54AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: >> 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? [description of multiplication snipped] > What I need is a multiplication that gets a correct value for the high 16 bit > (the result should be $FFFFFFFC instead of $1FFFC). Currently, I'm using an > unsigned 16x16=>32 multiplication with the absolute values of the operands, > and adjust the sign of the result. The question is, if there is a faster > method than this. No, you should just adjust the sign manually. -- Nate Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2009-11-06 00:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.