--- In [email protected], Thomas Hruska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John Matthews wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Thomas Hruska <thruska@> wrote: > >> One of the things I really dislike about the ANSI C/C++ Standard is > > that > >> there is no way to define your own data types in bits. You could use a > >> struct bitfield but you are still limited to the maximum int size for > >> the compiler (e.g. you can't simply declare a 1726-bit integer). > > > > I don't know about C++, but perhaps that wouldn't really fit into the > > low-ish level nature of C? > > Exactly why such a feature should exist. The compiler can handle > allocating 'x' bytes along integer boundaries and then generate > optimized assembler for the instructions than can be done in the > higher-level language. Although, it probably makes more sense to > declare on even byte-boundaries and multiples of two (e.g. 1024-bit, > 2048-bit) than some random number of bits (e.g. 1726-bit). We've sort > of been heading along that route anyway (i.e. 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, and > now 64-bit architectures). > > While we are on the subject of wishing for things in the Standard, 'ror' > and 'rol' operators should exist too. They can be faked using shift > operators but I've never seen a compiler optimize the two shift > instructions down to a ror/rol. > > -- > Thomas Hruska > CubicleSoft President > Ph: 517-803-4197 > > *NEW* MyTaskFocus 1.1 > Get on task. Stay on task. > > http://www.CubicleSoft.com/MyTaskFocus/ > You must be a youngster. You forgot the 1-kilobit dynamic rams and the 4-bit antiquarians.
Kocmotex
