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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64-bit unsigned integer? Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:10:23 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <421d1598-68d7-4d0b-b596-6e9c59cf865c@googlegroups.com> <877eqxe7u8.fsf@nightsong.com> <87muzsz6s2.fsf@nightsong.com> <628c3bba-6c0d-495b-be2f-e6ed3ef3418f@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: yZRtMzZmKCYxZ5GHo5ZYiA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50763 Date: 2018-03-01T20:10:23+01:00 List-Id: On 2018-03-01 19:15, Dan'l Miller wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> That replaces unpredictable penalty with a predictably prohibitive one. > > Why is it prohibitive? Because a bounded-length number object will have the worst case length, always. E.g. 100 x 64-bit words. Each elementary operation will take 1600 bytes from the stack and return 800 bytes back. This is certainly not for a small embedded/real-time target. But surely any range must be supported regardless the target hardware. Why invent a bicycle? Just allow type Big is range -2**6399..2**6399-1; No bounded-length numbers ever needed. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de