http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=180333


in reply to Re: A better mod (%) operator?
in thread A better mod (%) operator?

Or better yet, Inline::ASM.

But I agree with your other statements - I'd be very surprised to find a Perl program where a division operation was a significant bottleneck.

-sam

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A better mod (%) operator?
by tadman (Prior) on Jul 08, 2002 at 22:59 UTC
    From the Inline::ASM documentation:
    WARNING

    Do NOT use assembler to write Perl extensions! It's sick and wrong!
    Better. Evil. Muhahaha.
[reply]

      Saw that too. Begs the question: Why does it exist?

[reply]

        Because it's one wicked cool hack to be able to write perl with inline assembler. The biggest problem is that the asm isn't portable between threaded and nonthreaded versions of the same version and arch of perl.

        We are using here a powerful strategy of synthesis: wishful thinking. -- The Wizard Book

[reply]
        For those occasions when you've got to do what you've got to do, probably. There are some things you just can't do in C alone, though they are rare.
[reply]

In Section Meditations