Look into getting uint128/uint256 for counter and iter #21

New Issue

sacha · 2025-01-27T14:54:51+01:00

sacha commented

2025-01-27 14:54:51 +01:00

Currently both are of type int64 and can go up to
9223372036854775808

Which is less than the maximum amount of possible solutions:
6670903752021072936960

Even making it uint64 isn't much better:
18446744073709551616

The next step would be uint128 going up to:
340282366920938463463374607431768211456

But this would not cover an all 0 use-case in which we need to check all possible solutions:
362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 *362880 * 362880 * 362880
109110688415571316480344899355894085582848000000000

So the next best step would be:
115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936

Now to find a package that supports this. :-)

Currently both are of type int64 and can go up to `9223372036854775808` Which is less than the maximum amount of possible solutions: `6670903752021072936960` Even making it uint64 isn't much better: `18446744073709551616` The next step would be uint128 going up to: `340282366920938463463374607431768211456` But this would not cover an all 0 use-case in which we need to check all possible solutions: `362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 * 362880 *362880 * 362880 * 362880` `109110688415571316480344899355894085582848000000000` So the next best step would be: `115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936` Now to find a package that supports this. :-)

sacha added the

Low Priority

label 2025-01-27 20:38:43 +01:00

sacha commented

2025-01-28 02:17:09 +01:00

This isn't going to work with the atomic.int64. Could retool is to use uint64

sacha referenced this issue from a commit

2025-01-28 02:30:28 +01:00

Change int64 for select variables to uint64. (Closes #21)

sacha closed this issue

2025-01-28 02:30:28 +01:00

Sign in to join this conversation.