On 10 March 2011 13:07, Steve <sjh_goo...@shic.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm wondering, is it safe to re-use the same structure as both the first
> and second arguments to mpz_...() functions...
Yes, that is always safe, unless it is explicitly documented otherwise.
>
> For example, is the idiom:
>
> void addthenshift(mpz_t &mp,unsigned a,unsigned s)
> {
> mpz_add_ui(mp,mp,a);
> mpz_mul_2exp(mp,mp,s);
> }
>
> always safe? Or, is it necessary to introduce two temporaries? Would
> the answer be the same if I replaced "unsigned a" with "const mpz_t &a)
> and mpz_add_ui with mpz_add? I've looked in the pdf manual (18 December
> 2010) - but can't find an explicit answer.
I don't understand the question.
An mpz is a completely different structure to an unsigned machine integer...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
