Bitarrays in the age of 64bit
Jacob Carlborg
doob at me.com
Sat Apr 4 11:08:35 UTC 2020
On 2020-04-03 09:31, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:
> It was said that implementing bitarrays is complicated, because of the
> indexing.
>
> Has anybody ever considered to use bit-pointers?
> Nobody really uses the full address range that 64bit pointers have - in
> fact some hardware internally still uses 48bit or 56bit
> address-registers, so instead adding three lower address bits would not
> cost a lot (just forward bit 3..58 to the register instead of bit 0..55).
> This would also allow for implementing 2bit-types (one that I really
> would appreciate, because it can represent sign values, providing -1, 0,
> 1 and NaN - which is necessary as a comparison result for non-ordered
> values), and 4bit-types (so called nibbles).
> And with bit-pointers of course implementing arrays of boolean, sign,
> nibbles or even odd-length types would be straight forward. All the
> strange side-effects of byte clustering would vanish.
>
> Just an idea.
Sounds like, or similar, to tagged pointers [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_pointer
--
/Jacob Carlborg
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list