8 Mar
2011
8 Mar
'11
8:26 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:55, Artyom <artyomtnk@yahoo.com> wrote:
The point that same happens even for big integers, so I expect that move would prevent needless memory allocation.
Finally the performance matters, so such optimizations are important.
Actually, it's because performance matters that I'd expect it for 100. For such a small number (below 30 bits) I'd expect SBO, in which case the 100 100 still makes sense. I agree that for pow(100, 100), it shouldn't be 100...00 100...00, though :)