On Thu Feb 20, 2025 at 9:14 AM JST, John Hubbard wrote: > On 2/19/25 3:13 PM, Daniel Almeida wrote: >>> On 19 Feb 2025, at 17:23, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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? > > 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. Agreed, I wasn't aware of the C equivalents either, but since they exist we should definitely use the same naming scheme.
