On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Nathan T. Hjelm wrote: > Yes, and I completely agree. I was simply trying to keep it consistent in > case there is something I don't know about the heterogeneous case. > > I increased the size of the 64 bit member because there is no uint128 type.
Ah, I see. I would put the other sizes back, at a minimum. There should be no need to increase those. George -- comments? Should this be a new key fields (128, with 2 uint64_t's)? If this is only for large messages, is the extra 8 bytes a concern? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
