On 2/19/25 3:13 PM, Daniel Almeida wrote:>> On 19 Feb 2025, at 17:23, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 06:22, John Hubbard <jhubbard at
nvidia.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/19/25 4:51 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>> Yes, that looks like the optimal way to do this actually. It
also
>>>> doesn't introduce any overhead as the destructuring was
doing both
>>>> high_half() and low_half() in sequence, so in some cases it
might
>>>> even be more efficient.
>>>>
>>>> I'd just like to find a better naming. high() and low()
might be enough?
>>>> Or are there other suggestions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe use "32" instead of "half":
>>>
>>> .high_32() / .low_32()
>>> .upper_32() / .lower_32()
>>>
>>
>> The C code currently does upper_32_bits and lower_32_bits, do we want
>> to align or diverge here?
This sounds like a trick question, so I'm going to go
with..."align". haha :)
>>
>> Dave.
>
>
> My humble suggestion here is to use the same nomenclature. `upper_32_bits`
and
> `lower_32_bits` immediately and succinctly informs the reader of what is
going on.
>
Yes. I missed the pre-existing naming in C, but since we have it and it's
well-named as well, definitely this is the way to go.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard