Simple answer: then it shouldn't be our default numeric type. You say earlier that we don't need a default, and that is a case I hadn't considered before. But I'm growing to like it.
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Daniel Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Corey Richardson <co...@octayn.net> wrote: >> >> We need to perform at least as well as GMP for me to even consider it. > > The only realistic way to accomplish this is using GMP. Lots of other > big integer implementations exist with lots of work put into them and > the performance is not even in the same ballpark. It's difficult just > to implement all of the required algorithms: > > https://gmplib.org/manual/Division-Algorithms.html#Division-Algorithms > > Then, consider that you're going to need to write the low-level code > by hand in assembly so you're going to need domain experts for several > architectures. Processors and compilers are terrible at dealing with > the side effects like carry/overflow flags and can't deal with this > kind of code well. > > You'll need versions for different revisions of the CPU instruction > set too, since useful features are added all of the time. For example, > Haswell introduces the `MULX` instruction (among others) and Broadwell > will introduce `ADCX` and `ADOX`. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
