Subject: Re: [boost] [XInt] Some after thoughts
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-11 12:31:41
On 11/03/2011 00:36, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Maybe what you have in mind is letting the digit type be a template
> parameter, and then substituting in a user-defined type (or in the case
> of some compilers, a compiler-defined non-standard type) that serves as
> a 128-bit unsigned integer. I'm not convinced that this level of
> abstraction is compatible with generation of optimal code, though.
> Furthermore, this abstraction doesn't seem particularly useful, as the
> only purpose I can imagine of specifying a non-default digit type would
> be for this particular optimization.
That's what I had in mind when I suggested the idea.
I don't think there are really missed optimizations, but I may be wrong
in this.
Otherwise, this abstraction is also necessary to allow arbitrary ranges
as input.