Find first and last set bit of a long integer: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

@@ Line 609: / Line 609: @@
 Even though Fortran has intrinsic functions, and modern machines have special instructions for the task, it still seems worthwhile to write out functions.
-One thing that is evident, if you study the various ways to implement these functions, is that Fortran is ill suited, in a way most high-level languages have been ill-suited since the beginning of time: they do not have built in ''unsigned'' integers ''with overflow explicitly allowed''. ISO standard C does (and thus so does ATS, because its integers are exactly C integers). But this is unusual, outside of C and its relatives, and (I would imagine) owes to C's origins as a replacement for assembly language.
+One thing that is evident, if you study the various ways to implement these functions, is that Fortran is ill suited, in a way most high-level languages have been ill suited since the beginning of time: they do not have built in ''unsigned'' integers with ''overflow explicitly allowed''. ISO standard C does (and thus so does ATS, because its integers are exactly C integers). But this is unusual, outside of C and its relatives, and (I would imagine) owes to C's origins as a replacement for assembly language.
-<lang fortran>! As was already pointed out, Fortran already has intrinsic functions
+<lang fortran>! As was already pointed out, Fortran has intrinsic functions that
-! that should compile to efficient code, such as a single machine
+! should compile to efficient code, such as a single machine
 ! instruction. But it seems profitable to have written implementations
 ! according to the full task description, and also by other methods.