Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Question about suitability, portability, and "Boostiness"
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-14 18:34:39
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 04/14/2010 11:50 AM, Domagoj Saric wrote:
>> I just wanted to check with the people on this list about the
>> portability of it. [...]
> Considering it is an ancient trick and that any compiler targeting an
> OS as widespread as Windows has to 'support' it (e.g. BITMAPINFO
> struct) it is probably safe to assume as 'safe'/portable...
That's what I figured, when no one spoke up. I implemented it this
morning, and I'm happy to say that the library is slightly faster now,
as well as more memory-efficient. (I haven't uploaded that change to the
> OTOH, it would be great if you could separate the core 'big int'/math
> logic from the storage/allocation logic, for example have:
> - a base 'math handling' class with functions that all take the
> actual location and size of the number as parameters
> - a wrapping template class(es) that can be configured with policies
> whether to use/work with fixed sized buffers/numbers (thus no memory
> allocation, thus no exception handling code, thus maximally lean
> code) or dynamically sized buffers (with or without SBOs, deep or
> shallow copies, reference counting etc etc...)...
Unifying everything like that could be interesting, in both the
"fascinating" and "difficult" meanings of the word. I've put it on my
to-do list, I'll see if I can find a way to do it.
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk