Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh? (original) (raw)
Peter Lawrey peter.lawrey at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 10:20:59 UTC 2017
- Previous message: Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Next message: Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
We have arrays already but we don't have primitive types of more than 64-bit. If we had uint128 for example we wouldn't need this method.
On 26 Sep. 2017 11:31, "Andrew Haley" <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
On 26/09/17 08:25, Peter Lawrey wrote: > I am looking forward to intrinsic support for 128 bit math using ?Long2? > and XMM (or even YMM, ZMM) instructions. > This is the best way forward, I hope. > > Personally I would like to see a long long type, or even uint128, uint256, > uint512 style notation. > > Another option might be something like long<128> or an annotation like > @uint128 long or even @decimal128 double but who knows.
Do you actually need any of that? I think vector types make more sense. Java already has a great many scalar types. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
- Previous message: Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Next message: Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]