Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-08 15:26:39

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:55, Artyom <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> The point that same happens even for big integers, so I expect that move
> would prevent needless memory allocation.
>
> Finally the performance matters, so such optimizations are important.
>

Actually, it's because performance matters that I'd expect it for 100.
 For such a small number (below 30 bits) I'd expect SBO, in which case
the 100 100 still makes sense.

I agree that for pow(100, 100), it shouldn't be 100...00 100...00, though :)