I'm trying to do a program that compute the GCD (greatest common divisor).

It's very simple to do it with integer (ALU), but I can't do it with the math coprocessor (FPU).

Reading the Intel Manual I've seen the FPREM1 instruction, but when trying to use it it doesn't work. In fact it seems this instruction is waiting for a division just before...

The only thing I'm trying to achieve is something like a modulo operation with the FPU.

Does someone has a clue ?

Thank you very much !

Regards, Neitsa.
Posted on 2004-06-03 02:01:50 by Neitsa
Might be of some help:

IMHO, if you are using divide then it is going to be too slow.
Posted on 2004-06-03 10:03:41 by bitRAKE
GCD of what?! real numbers?
You need first explain what whoul you name GCD for real numbers in math terms then ask for realization.
Or you are talking of long integers? Like 64 bit and bigger?
Posted on 2004-06-03 13:14:28 by The Svin
Hi ,

Bitrake : Thanks a lot for your link !

The Svin:

I'm trying to use math coprocessor to overcome the limitation of ALU register's (0xFFFFFFFF). I'm not talking about using the decimal part of real number, just using the bigger capacacity offered by FPU numbers.
To be sure that those numbers doesn't have decimal part I'm doing this:

invoke FpuAtoFL,int1, addr FLOAT1,DEST_MEM ;convert string to REAL
invoke FpuAtoFL,int2, addr FLOAT2,DEST_MEM

FLD FLOAT1 ;push on FPU stack
FRNDINT ; round it

int1 and int2 are declared with TBYTE due to FpuAtoFL.

Thanks. Neitsa.
Posted on 2004-06-03 16:57:42 by Neitsa
The FpuAtoFL function is designed to convert an ASCII text representation of the number you want to convert to a float. The first parameter must be the address of the null-terminated ASCII string. You can find all those details in the extensive Help file describing each function and provided with the FPULIB.

The FPREM instruction is of no use for what you are trying to achieve. Following is the general process you should follow:

fild qword ;Load the 64-bit integer to the FPU
fidiv dword ;Divide it by whatever integer you have to
fld st ;Copy the result to the FPU
frndint ;Round it to an integer
fsub ;Subtract it from the original result
fxam ;Examine the modulo
fstsw ax ;Transfer result to AX
sahf ; and to the flag register
jz zero_modulo

Posted on 2004-06-03 21:18:41 by Raymond
I'm trying to use math coprocessor to overcome the limitation of ALU register's (0xFFFFFFFF).

You realize that you can use 64 bit operations very easily on x86 ALU? add/adc, sub/sbb, shrd/shld?
I would say those are a much better alternative than setting x87 to extended precision (everything else would be way less accurate), and trying to calc on that while making sure you lose no precision, and work without shifts.
Posted on 2004-06-04 02:07:26 by Scali
This might work?

not edx
neg eax
sbb edx, -1

sub eax, ebx
sbb edx, ecx

add eax, ebx
adc edx, ecx


je _1a

_0: NEG64

xchg eax, ebx
xchg edx, ecx

_1: SUB64

jg _1

jne _0
_1a: test eax, eax
jne _0

_2: ADD64

jne _3
test eax, eax
jne _3

inc eax
_3: retn
Untested, but surely almost there...

Note: signed 64-bit numbers used EAX:EDX and EBX:ECX.
EDX and ECX are the most significant DWORDs.
Posted on 2004-06-04 11:48:23 by bitRAKE
edx::eax would be a nice way to mention then. That's MASM syntax, and it's customary to put the most significant part up first anyway.
Posted on 2004-06-04 12:20:29 by Scali
EAX:EDX is the memory representation. The usage is purely based on the preferences of the individual and as long as it is stated to eliminate ambiguity I'm fine with either notation.
Posted on 2004-06-04 12:47:53 by bitRAKE
Hrm, usage is purely based on the preferences of the individual? I thought EDX:EAX was the standard notation?
Posted on 2004-06-04 12:50:04 by f0dder
If I state the usage what difference does it make? I create notation to solve a problem as it suits me - as long as the notation is documented there is no problem. I'm sorry if this causes others difficulty, but it is something I've gotten used to as I explore different areas each with their own notation.
Posted on 2004-06-04 12:59:32 by bitRAKE

Just to thank you all for your answers and replies !

I think I have all in my hands to implement in 64 bits or with FPU.

Thanks again.

Regards, Neitsa.
Posted on 2004-06-05 21:02:05 by Neitsa