Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:19:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <vbmlkm$2cmfp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me> <vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me>
 <505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org>
 <vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me> <vb3smg$1ta6s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4q5o$12ukk$3@dont-email.me> <vb6a16$38aj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb7evj$12ukk$4@dont-email.me> <vb8587$3gq7e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb91e7$3o797$1@dont-email.me> <vb9eeh$3q993$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb9l7k$3r2c6$2@dont-email.me> <vba26l$3te44$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbag2s$3vhih$1@dont-email.me> <vbbnf9$8j04$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbbsl4$9hdg$1@dont-email.me> <vbcbob$bd22$3@dont-email.me>
 <vbcob9$dvp4$1@dont-email.me> <vbg0e8$v9mi$2@dont-email.me>
 <a3e7614794a11b67739888bcaa7e734a@www.novabbs.org>
 <vbguhv$18kfl$1@dont-email.me>
 <494082f2ee00c2ce616c1f95d2a67275@www.novabbs.org>
 <vbjg06$1r8bb$1@dont-email.me>
 <9179d22594f89b140e5486e70eeedf73@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 13:19:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="245842e44c78e95d3bc5cb773286c128";
	logging-data="2513401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BOPqKbD879KBid0GNH76RRTgDxjzjdcU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oYN2uhGa+qjomW9dml/XJjiPVNI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <9179d22594f89b140e5486e70eeedf73@www.novabbs.org>
Bytes: 3061

On 08/09/2024 20:32, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 6:25:10 +0000, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> On 08/09/2024 02:17, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 7:15:11 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> static uint64_t array[1024*1024*512+1]
>>> static int      SIZE = sizeof(array)/sizeof(uint65_t);
>>
>> Surely you mean :
>>
>> static const size_t array_size = sizeof(array) / sizeof(uint64_t);
>>
> 
> I wanted SIZE to have the same type as i.

Okay, I suppose - though I would rather have it being an appropriate 
type and, if necessary, change the type of "i".  But I still don't get 
your point - what has this "SIZE" of 0x20000001 got to do with a "START" 
that you want to equal 0x80000001 ?  Were you just trying to show that 
it is possible to make the number 0x80000001 in code, and got the 
numbers wrong?  If you know that you might have numbers exceeding 32-bit 
ranges, then you need to use a 64-bit type as the index variable - and 
it can still happily be signed rather than writing more complicated code 
just to force it into an obsessive rule about using unsigned types.