On 9 January 2015 at 16:08, Frediano Ziglio <fredd...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree (after some digging) we are not sure we won't get that > overflow. Agree to drop the second patch. However I would retain the > first. Compiler can use it to optimize much easier. For instance if > compiler understand that the multiplication fits into a 64 bit can > decide to avoid the 128 bit operation easily, not so easy with all > these shift, multiply, division and union structure.
Yes, the uint128_t patch is a good idea. -- PMM
