Will all the functions in std.intrinsic that now take uint take size_t, i.e. take ulong on 64?  In other words, are they all designed to operate on machine words?

Also, for functions that take pointers, where implicit conversion of uint -> ulong is not possible, will there be both a uint and a ulong version?

See std.intrinsic for Phobos1.


David Simcha wrote:
> Will all the functions in std.intrinsic that now take uint take size_t, i.e. take ulong on 64?  In other words, are they all designed to operate on machine words?
>
> Also, for functions that take pointers, where implicit conversion of uint -> ulong is not possible, will there be both a uint and a ulong version?
>

Thanks.  One quick comment, though.  Are you sure this is right?  I found this in D1 std.intrinsic and it seems inconsistent:

  int bsf(uint v);
  int bsr(size_t v);

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com>wrote:

> See std.intrinsic for Phobos1.
>
>
>
> David Simcha wrote:
>
>> Will all the functions in std.intrinsic that now take uint take size_t, i.e. take ulong on 64?  In other words, are they all designed to operate on machine words?
>>
>> Also, for functions that take pointers, where implicit conversion of uint -> ulong is not possible, will there be both a uint and a ulong version?
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20101110/7202eae7/attachment.html>