Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh? (original) (raw)
Peter Lawrey peter.lawrey at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 14:53:29 UTC 2017
- Previous message (by thread): Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Next message (by thread): Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
None, except you end up jumping through hoops to implement 128 bit arithmetic efficiently or cleanly. At some point language support for such a basic operation is the simplest and clearest solution.
On 26 Sep. 2017 17:25, "Andrew Haley" <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
On 26/09/17 11:20, Peter Lawrey wrote: > 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.
Perhaps not, but why is needing this method a problem? -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20170926/d9209823/attachment.htm>
- Previous message (by thread): Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Next message (by thread): Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]