[mpir-devel] Re: Another disagreement between documentation and mpir.h

2011-05-04 Thread Cactus
On May 4, 2:55 pm, Marc wrote: > On May 3, 1:00 am, Bill Hart wrote: > > > I think the unsigned long int is correct this time. I see no reason > > why the remove function should return a number of bits. > > Well, if the factor being removed is 2, the number of times you can > factor it out of a

[mpir-devel] Re: Another disagreement between documentation and mpir.h

2011-05-04 Thread Marc
On May 3, 1:00 am, Bill Hart wrote: > I think the unsigned long int is correct this time. I see no reason > why the remove function should return a number of bits. Well, if the factor being removed is 2, the number of times you can factor it out of a number with n+1 bits like 2^n is... -- You r

[mpir-devel] Re: Question about mpz_popcount

2011-05-04 Thread Cactus
On May 4, 10:12 am, Bill Hart wrote: > Another Windows bug. Thanks for pointing these out Chris! It should be > changed to return the largest mp_bitcnt_t. > > Bill. > > On 4 May 2011 03:24, Chris wrote: > > > > > In the documentation for mpz_popcount this is stated: > > > If op < 0, the number

Re: [mpir-devel] Question about mpz_popcount

2011-05-04 Thread Bill Hart
Another Windows bug. Thanks for pointing these out Chris! It should be changed to return the largest mp_bitcnt_t. Bill. On 4 May 2011 03:24, Chris wrote: > In the documentation for mpz_popcount this is stated: > > If op < 0, the number of 1s is infinite, and the return value is ULONG_MAX, > the