On 10/16/2011 01:40 PM, David Gibson wrote: > > Let me see if I can work up a synthetic int128 type. > > So.. you think replacing every single basic arithmetic operations with > calls to implement the synthetic type, _and_ imposing the resulting > overhead is _less_ ugly than some slightly fiddly re-ordering of > operations? Seriously? >
In terms of how the code looks, it's seriously more ugly (see the patches I sent out). Conceptually it's cleaner, since we're not dodging the issue that we need to deal with a full 64-bit domain. But my main concern is maintainability. The 64-bit blanket is to short, if we keep pulling it in various directions we'll just expose ourselves in new ways. The overhead is negligible. This code comes nowhere near any fast path. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
