Re: 64bit Euphoria
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Apr 19, 2010
- 1823 views
The problem here is is whether or not 16 terabytes will fit into a 53bit integer (the largest integer values that can be represented by a 64bit floating point number). If 64bit float points can't hold those addresses, then the issue of having atoms used to hold memory addresses from legacy code can't be address. (Although some backhand envelop math suggests that 16 terabytes will easily fit into a 64bit floating point number...)
Easily. 16TB is only 244 bytes. 64 bits gives you a full exabyte. With 53 bits, we're limited to a mere petabyte.
In any case, being stuck with 64bit floats and 63bit integers still breaks the assumption that an atom can hold any value that an integer can.
I've always thought of that as more of an implementation detail than a design constraint. With 63-bit integers and regular double precision floating point numbers, we end up with a lot more precision, albeit through better integers. And at least we lose nothing with doubles, though they become more of a specialized data type, because you need a floating point number, rather than integer overflow.
The real question with 64-bit is whether we make the jump to additional data types. /ducks
Matt
