On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 06:22, John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? Dave.
