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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d2cba5965c7bfcd5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-03 21:37:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!newsfeed.ksu.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.okstate.edu!not-for-mail From: David Starner Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64bit access to an array of 8bit values Date: 4 Mar 2002 04:08:33 GMT Organization: Oklahoma State University Message-ID: References: <3C823A1A.6030006@users.sf.net> <3C82A90D.1040801@users.sf.net> Reply-To: starner@okstate.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: x8b4e5069.dhcp.okstate.edu User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20745 Date: 2002-03-04T04:08:33+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:51:57 -0500, Dave Poirier wrote: > considering the issues mentioned by John R. Strohm about 48 bits > processors and other weirdies, would that code works under all of them? Probably not. > It sure does look like an interesting, just wonder about portability.. It's not a good idea if you want *Portability*. But if you're willing to settle for something less, a carefully designed version of that code (whatever you do, watch out for endian troubles) should work on 80x86s, PowerPCs, M68ks, Alphas, and most of the other consumer level systems out there. If that's your target audience, it may be worth sacrificing that last .1% if you can get a decent speed increase out of it. -- David Starner - starner@okstate.edu What we've got is a blue-light special on truth. It's the hottest thing with the youth. -- Information Society, "Peace and Love, Inc."