Now that I think about it, can you do 32/64 bit compatability this way too?
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:26:11 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote: > > Yes, that's what I meant. I just realized all you need to do % 2^32 or & > 0xffffff whenever you add... disregard that lol > > On Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, John Myles White wrote: >> >> By integer overflow, do you mean wrapping arithmetic like you’d get from >> doing everything mod N for some integer N? >> >> — John >> >> On Mar 13, 2014, at 7:08 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sorry if this is hijacking the thread, but I'm wondering is there a way >> to force integer overflow? I think it would be useful for things like >> sliding window protocols. >> >> Also, is there a way to release julia code that works on both 32 bit and >> 64 bit machines? (it sounds like annotating types as 32-bit isn't enough) >> >> Great language by the way! >> >> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 6:30:00 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> There's been many discussions of this before. The basic premise is >>> simple: all integer arithmetic is done in your native word size. When you >>> store that result somewhere, it is converted to the storage type. Since you >>> can do most operations on Int64s and then convert to Int32 and get the >>> exact same answer, this works out fine. I have yet to hear a really >>> convincing argument for why we shouldn't just do everything in native int >>> size. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Stefan Karpinski >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, andrew cooke <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> defining >>>>> Base.promote_rule(::Type{Int32}, ::Type{Int32}) = Int32 >>>>> doesn't help either, and i'm not sure why. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Promotion only applies when the types don't already have the same type. >>>> When you write int32(1) + int32(2) you call this method: >>>> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/base/int.jl#L16, which >>>> explicitly converts the values to your native Int type and then does the >>>> work. >>>> >>> >>> >>
