From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.18.138 with SMTP id 10mr6168415ios.106.1519567166772; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 05:59:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.14.214 with SMTP id 80mr349394otj.9.1519567166619; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 05:59:26 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!o66no1499014ita.0!news-out.google.com!a25ni631itj.0!nntp.google.com!o66no1499013ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 05:59:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:470:9174:2:f0c5:8173:1d32:d55d; posting-account=r0RePAgAAABkc8iAou09Mtfbf-fnKQql NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:470:9174:2:f0c5:8173:1d32:d55d References: <63f986fd-662a-47e7-adf9-5fddc243ac45@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <68a00dac-e58c-48b7-b2cd-edf44b86d73c@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: 64-bit unsigned integer? From: MM Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 13:59:26 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Received-Body-CRC: 2257742270 X-Received-Bytes: 1973 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50636 Date: 2018-02-25T05:59:26-08:00 List-Id: On Sunday, 25 February 2018 13:23:24 UTC, Dmitry Kazakov wrote: > On 2018-02-25 13:54, MM wrote: > > I don't want to go the BigNum route - too heavyweight. Implementing it > > efficiently myself may require access to the processor's condition code > > registers, so this feels like an assembly language approach? > > Why, it is straightforward because you have no negatives. Something like > this: > > package Unsigneds_64 is That is a pretty cool solution, and thanks for coding it so quickly! I was rather hoping for a one-liner type definition, but I suppose I can't have everything! M --