Count big bits in u64 instead of usize #143
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A 32-bit target could create a giant
BigUint
over 2²⁹ bytes = 512MB,not that this would be computationally useful, but that value would have
more than
usize::MAX
bits. To avoid that possibility of overflow, wecan better represent bit counts in
u64
.For 64-bit targets, a
BigUint
over 2⁶¹ bytes is not realistic.This changes the public API in the return values of
bits()
andtrailing_zeros()
, as well as thebit_size
parameter ofRandBigInt
and
RandomBits
. Trying to randomize an absurd size will naturallycause a capacity overflow, just as if you'd made a huge
Vec
.