Re: 64-bit ints and non-capable hardware

[Dan Sugalski]

At 6:25 PM -0400 10/21/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:

 Okay, I'm about ready to just bite the bullet and declare that
 INTVALs have to be 64 bit integers.

Which INTVALs?

I registers.

INTVAL, IMHAOSBRPO[1], is overused internally.
I see little relative performance and size damage if INTVAL is made 64
bits and relegated only to user-space math as long as the internals
(pointer-tracking, sizes, offsets, etc) are left as native.  You can
check and cast when numbers cross over.  OTOH, converting all of the
internals to 64-bit is probably not such a good idea.

Of course, I registers are probably being used for both uses completely
independent of each other.

Yeah, and they don't need to be. Most of the internals can leave native integers to be whatever's most convenient and fastest

Or did I miss the point on wherefore 64-bit?

Nope, that's pretty much it.

At this point, I think I've given up on requiring 64 bit ints. If they're rare enough, then they can just be in PMCs and be done with it. We can always revisit that decision later if it's really important.
--
Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk