C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [std-proposals] Integer overflow arithmetic

From: Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:32:54 +0100
> Ok, here's a challenge. Try implementing the standard set of 512bit operations in terms of 128bit casts, and let's see how fun that is.

I don't see how this is relevant, but it's not any more difficult than
doing it with widening functions.

Say you have implemented 512-bit multiplication in terms of mul_wide
between 64-bit integers. Now simply replace every occurrence of
mul_wide with a 128-bit multiplication. 64-bit mul_wide is
functionally equivalent to 128-bit multiplication with 64-bit

With these two options, which one is better? Well, I'd argue that the
128-bit version is better because it would be faster in constant
evaluations and debug builds since no function call is necessary. It
also requires no include other than #include <cstdint> and even that
is unnecessary if you go straight for __int128. There's also no chance
of confusing the low and high bits of the mul_wide results because
this is totally unambiguous for a 128-bit integer.

All in all, it seems like 128-bit integers are vastly superior for
EXPRESSING these widening multiplications. It should also be noted
that the codegen is optimal.

> unsigned __int128 mul(unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y) {
> return (unsigned __int128) x * y;
> }

Clang emits:
> mul(unsigned long long, unsigned long long): # @mul(unsigned long long, unsigned long long)
> mov rdx, rsi
> mulx rdx, rax, rdi
> ret

So 128-bit multiplication should be just as good for IMPLEMENTING
widening multiplication as well.

If 128-bit integers are superior for EXPRESSING multiplication and at
least as good for IMPLEMENTING it, what merit does a widening
multiplication function have? You'll need to find some metric by which
mul_wide is superior to such an extent that the committee will
consider including it in the standard.

Received on 2024-02-18 18:33:06