At 10:38 PM 7/10/2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 10:03 PM 7/10/2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>>Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>>I've not looked at the generated code, but profiling indicates that an
>>>additional division is happening, adding an extra 231 instructions.
>>>(xlc_r -O2)
>>
>>If you redefine the macro as a shift, does the profile look better?

Ok, attached is the code redone as binary math.  I'm tired, could be
any number of major blunders in it, but on first pass, it looked right.

Bill