Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:42:52 +0300 From: Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: 256/128 bit integer arithmatic On 2015-03-17 11:07, magnum wrote: > #define UINT128_MAX ((uint128_t)-1) > > That last line is because we can't (even in gcc-5 afaik) express > constants larger than ULL. We could set a positive number using shifts > but the above works fine. If the rules for uint128_t are the same as for other unsigned types in C then ((uint128_t)-1) is a valid and probably the cleanest way to express UINT128_MAX. -- Alexander Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.