MSVC’s instrinsics __emulu and _umul128 in GCC/CLang

  32-bit, 64-bit, c++, intrinsics, multiplication

In MSVC there exist instrinsics __emulu() and _umul128(). First does u32*u32->u64 multiplication and second u64*u64->u128 multiplication.

Do same intrinsics exist for CLang/GCC?

Closest I found are _mulx_u32() and _mulx_u64() mentioned in Intel’s Guide. But they produce mulx instruction which needs BMI2 support. While MSVC’s intrinsics produce regular mul instruction. Also _mulx_u32() is not available in -m64 mode, while __emulu() and _umul128() both exist in 32 and 64 bit mode of MSVC.

You may try online 32-bit code and 64-bit code.

Of cause for 32-bit one may do return uint64_t(a) * uint64_t(b); (see it online) hoping that compiler will guess correctly and optimize to using u32*u32->u64 multiplication instead of u64*u64->u64. But is there a way to be sure about this? Not to rely on compiler’s guess that both arguments are 32-bit (i.e. higher part of uint64_t is zeroed)? To have some intrinsics like __emulu() that make you sure about code.

There is __int128 in GCC/CLang (see code online) but again we have to rely on compiler’s guess that we actually multiply 64-bit numbers (i.e. higher part of int128 is zeroed). Is there a way to be sure without compiler guessing through using some intrinsic?

BTW, both uint64_t (for 32-bit) and __int128 (for 64-bit) produce correct mul instruction instead of mulx in GCC/CLang. But again we have to rely that compiler guesses correctly that higher part of uint64_t and __int128 is zeroed.

Of cause I can look into assembler code that GCC/Clang have optimized and guessed correctly, but looking at assembler once doesn’t guarantee that same will happen always in all circumstances. And I don’t know of a way in C++ to statically assert that compiler did correct guess about assembler instructions.

Source: Windows Questions C++