On 7/10/22 8:19 PM, Era Scarecrow wrote:
On Friday, 8 July 2022 at 15:32:44 UTC, Rob T wrote:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.10914.1566237225.29801.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com
In case someone comes across this old thread
https://dlang.org/phobos/core_int128.html
There was a discussion on this not long ago. Walter tried implementing
it recently too, though I'm guessing he gave up.
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wuiurmxvqjcuybfip...@forum.dlang.org
There's multiple libraries, one of which i wrote which tries to address
this issue.
One thing you can try doing is using BigInt, and then reducing to
128bit if/when you need to store the result. Apparently a number of
compilers and back-ends already know how to handle 128bit types (*and
maybe larger*), but it's a matter of just putting it in the D frontend
so it generates the appropriate calls.
https://github.com/d-gamedev-team/gfm/blob/master/integers/gfm/integers/wideint.d
https://github.com/rtcvb32/Side-Projects/tree/master/arbitraryint
So here is what happened:
1. User found an old thread (2019) asking if there was a 128-bit integer.
2. User noticed that there's a new implementation for 128-bit integers.
3. User replied to the thread indicating that there is an actual
implementation now.
4. D forum software prompted user to create a new thread because it's
really old.
5. The post you see above.
Now, this is one *actual use case* where I think it's correct to
resurrect a 3-year-old thread. Because the new reply actually isn't
connected to the old thread at all, except by reference in the new
thread. So someone finding the old thread will *not* see this reply
unless they also search for any newer replies.
It makes me wonder, when you reply to an old thread and the forum
software suggests instead to create a new thread referencing the old
thread, if the forum software shouldn't put a link in the old thread to
the new thread so those who find the old thread see there are newer
replies to it?
-Steve
