ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes: Below is a patch to do this (and return value is long, not mp_bitcnt_t, since it needs to be signed). What do you think? I'm to busy to make an educated analysis.
Why isn't __gmp_extract_double's style OK for mpn_set_d? Is its conventions not neat enough, or are there efficiency reasons? If efficiency reasons, are any efficiency advantage of mpn_set_d maintained once __gmp_extract_double is replaced by mpn_set_d in callers? (I mean, perhaps the saved shifting in mpn_set_d is instead done in the caller.) Do you plan to replace __gmp_extract_double by mpn_set_d where __gmp_extract_double is used currently? Keeping both these two very similar functions seems a bit ugly. _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
