klingonopera

49 ms·

1. 481.▲
   by klingonopera 8y ago

   I'm no expert, but shouldn't x86 then produce two 128-bit register entries if it multiplies two 128-bit integers, so totaling actually four registry entries on a 64-bit architecture? If this were the case, Intel would slow down ju
2. 482.▲
   by klingonopera 8y ago

   > Integer Overflow is undefined behavior in C Signed overflow is undefined behavior, unsigned overflow is defined in both C/C++. Apart from that, I agree with you. It has to do with the fact that OP is using 128-bit variables on a
3. 483.▲
   by klingonopera 8y ago

   But evolution is a result, there is no inherent design to it. I doubt you could apply Gall's Law to evolution, maybe just the first sentence?
4. 484.▲
   by klingonopera 8y ago

   I disagree. Build a system too simple, and you'll end up with technical debt and can't scale, build it too complex, and it probably won't ever take off. The first does give you a product that runs the risk of becoming obsolet
5. 485.▲
   by klingonopera 8y ago

   I'm guessing the 128-bit multiplication implementation on the ARM architecture isn't as well done as is on the Intel platform? You might be able to reclaim the performance if you manually implement the multiplication using 64-bit