On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:37 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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?
Without the vader documentation it is difficult to asses the needs for the 128 bits key. I tried to find the documentation online, but every this I found they use a __s64 type.
Which function exactly requires 128bits integers? Where is the call to this function in the vader BTL?
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to:
> devel mailing list