On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:17:30AM +0100, Mario Lang wrote: > Yes, thanks for the nice demonstration, so memcpy > is not really the problem, however, changing the amount of bits > used for a single slot is going to be... QUoting the author, > going to more than 64bit would be a loss of performance, going > to less than 64bit would be a loss of precision, and using > a struct with a separate tag field would increase memory > usage by at least factor two, due to alignment...
So you use the current format when compiling on 32bit systems, and you use a struct on 64bit machines. Most 64bit machines have tons of ram already so who cares if it doubles memory use. > I can very well see why he does not want to make one of > these changes just to make his code run on an arch > it already runs on (through 32bit compatibility). > > So I guess the final answer is either we figure out > a preprocessor based patch which makes the necessary > adjustments for 64bit archs, and leaves the code basically > the same for 32bit archs, or we don't package SC for 64-bit archs. Some defines that are set differently on different archs might work. I haven't looked at the code long enough to find where this whole thing is defined in the source code. Once I find it I might consider trying something silly with it. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
