Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] rust: add useful ops for u64

[John Hubbard]

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.

thanks,
--
John Hubbard