Markus Metz wrote: > > #ifdef HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT > > typedef long long longest; > > #else > > typedef long longest; > > #endif > > > > ? > > > > If you're desperate for more than 32 bits, an IEEE "double" can > > represent integers between -2^53 and 2^53 exactly, but this is likely > > to be more trouble than it's worth (you have to be careful with > > division, you can't use a double as an array index, you can't use > > shifts or bitwise operators, ...). > > > IMHO, we should first make sure that the vector libs support up to > INT_MAX (2^31 - 1) features. Vector libs LFS was a first step, and > unless there is a revolutionary new hardware concept in the near future > with huge amounts of RAM and much higher processing speed, building > topology for so many features will take a long long time, particularly > in case of areas. One solution would be to increase the speed and > decrease the memory requirements of topology building, and I think more > brains should be put to that task before increasing the number of > supported features, i.e. changing plus_t from a 32-bit integer type to a > 64-bit integer type.
It isn't just vector code which would benefit from a wide integer type. Some raster code has problems with maps with more than 2^31 cells. -- Glynn Clements <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
