Hi, > >> It'll collide with Sebastians patch in that area. I suggested a > >> INTEGRAL_TYPE_P check instead of the simple_iv one, it > >> should be cheaper. Zdenek, do you think it will be "incorrect" > >> in some cases? > > > > well, it does not make much sense -- reductions of integral type would > > be taken into consideration for determining the size of the canonical > > variable. However, it is not a big issue (the choice of the type is more > > or less arbitrary, as long as the number of iterations fits into it; > > selecting > > the type based on another existing iv is just to avoid unnecessary > > extensions), > > Hm, ok. Shouldn't we then simply choose a signed type that can hold > niter based on the fact that we know this IV won't overflow? Choosing > the biggest of all IVs precision looks indeed odd if we just need to count > from zero to niter.
we often cannot use a signed type (as long as the initial value is zero), since we could not guarantee that it will not overflow (if the number of iterations is more than half of the range of the type), Zdenek
