A more general bsr/bsf implementation

[safety0ff via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 12 April 2015 at 15:21:26 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>
> Sorry for not being clear.

I should have thought about it more before answering. :)

> I understand why the current bsr behaves like it does, but what 
> I meant is whether that is the desired behavior of bsr:
>     bsr( byte(-1) ) == 31  (32-bit size_t)
>     bsr( byte(-1) ) == 63  (64-bit size_t)
> instead of
>     bsr( byte(-1) ) == 7

I think 7 is the desired result.

I don't know whether there are uses for bsr with negative signed 
arguments since it returns the MSB position for all values.