On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:48:03 +0200, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:46:53 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The big question is whether being clever and producing the tightest >> type is worth the time to figure out what that type is, as well as >> the potentially uncertain output type.
> Tangentially related: will promotion be suitably delayed on systems with > support for 64-bit ints? More generally, what is the state-of/plan-for > "64-bit support" (whatever that may mean) in Parrot?
I thought about that during BigInt hacking. It could be a nice optimization if we go:
Int -> Int64 -> BigInt
on 32-bit systems that have 64-bit integer support. OTOH it makes type promotion a bit more complicated and dependent on configuration settings.
Why make a stop in 32-bit land at all in that case? If the system supports 64-bit ints, why not use them for everything right up until you promote to BigNum? Is it a memory bandwidth issue or something?
If you've built parrot to use 64 bit ints, it will.
We still have to generally address the whole 64 bit integer question. I've been avoiding it, but I'm not sure that's ultimately feasable.
--
Dan--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
