On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Nathan T. Hjelm wrote:
> Yes, and I completely agree. I was simply trying to keep it consistent in
> case there is something I don't know about the heterogeneous case.
>
> I increased the size of the 64 bit member because there is no uint128 type.
Ah, I see.
I would put the other sizes back, at a minimum. There should be no need to increase those.
George -- comments? Should this be a new key fields (128, with 2 uint64_t's)? If this is only for large messages, is the extra 8 bytes a concern?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}