> I think we should use int32_t instead of IV for all code related
> data. The IV is 64-bit on 64-bit machine, which is significant waste.
I always see this claim ("why would you use 64 bits unless you really
need them big, they must be such a waste") being bandied around, without
much hard numbers to support the claims. IV is usually the native
integer datatype of the CPU which means that it will run fast.
Unless you are thinking of huge and/or multidimensional arrays
of tightly packed integers, I don't think you should care.
> The IV is also platform specific,
So is int32_t, believe it or not. In UNICOS 9 it is not
available through any standard header (such as <sys/types.h>).
It is available in <arpa/nameser.h>, but its size is 64 bits.
> and has caused some nasty problems so far.
Such as?
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
