|
<br />
int bignum = 123123425364347456758696679;<br />
The compiler says: intger to big for int type (or something like that)
How do i make the bignum work? (i'm guessing this is a simple question soooo be gentle  )
|
|
|
|
|
Try __int64
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
Not even close to being large enough. The largest value for __int64 is 263, or 264 if unsigned.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
The pattern of his number indicated to me that he had just semi-randomly typed them to indicate he needed something larger than an int.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
As he was not very specific, that's always a possibility.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
_int64
Does that mean a int thats 64 numbers long or is that defined the standard library?
nevermind........ 2 to the power or 64. I see.
Is LARGE_INTEGER in the standard library too? <--- is that C style programming?
"If you try to talk sense to a fool, he'll think your foolish"
-- modified at 14:06 Wednesday 26th April, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
__int64 is 64-bits long. I assumed you had simply typed gibberish indicating you needed a long number. If, however, the number you typed earlier (123123425364347456758696679) actually needs to be stored, __int64 isn't long enough.
LARGE_INTEGER is a Win32 thing, but it may be defined by other headers.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
you could also use LARGE_INTEGER
|
|
|
|
|
Which also has the same 263 limitation as __int64.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out Mr Crow. Though might I say, it has taken you two replies to say that those of us who are trying to help the OP are wrong. But you have yet to suggest an answer yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
waldermort wrote: But you have yet to suggest an answer yourself.
To suggest a way not to do something is in itself an answer. On a similar note, by eliminating all the wrong/incorrect ways of doing something, what we should be left with is the correct way. This was a philosophy used by Thomas Edison.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
waldermort wrote: Though might I say, it has taken you two replies to say that those of us who are trying to help the OP are wrong. But you have yet to suggest an answer yourself.
childish...
Ryan "Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to use something like the DECIMAL data type, which supports 296. If that is not an option, the only other thing I can think of is to store it as a string. I created a class once that did this, and it had basic math operations (+, -, /, *, !) so you could add, subtract, divide, etc very large numbers.
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." - Mark Twain
"We will be known forever by the tracks we leave." - Native American Proverb
|
|
|
|
|
The bigger question would be "what are you trying to accomplish?" In other words, do you need to simply store the digits or mathematically manipulate them? If the latter, do you really need a number this big?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is if i were to create a program that reqiures a digit password. But the password would be huge number (harder to figure out).
Or is this a bad way to make a password number?
Thanks for the answers everybody!!!
"If you try to talk sense to a fool, he'll think your foolish"
-- modified at 14:33 Wednesday 26th April, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
My gut feeling is that it's a terrible idea. Beyond that, an __int64 would be sufficient or simply a random string.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you need a large numeric password then the better way to do it is store it as a string a restrict its contents to characters from '0' to '9'. This password can be arbitrarily long if stored as a string.
You would only need it to be represented as an integer if you needed arithmetic or mathematical manipulations. Note that checking if the password is correct does not need mathematics, a simple strcmp() will do the trick.
Anyway, if you needed to represent as an integer that fits in 64 bits, then I would sugest _int64 instead of LARGE_INTEGER. The _int64 is a compiler feature, and LARGE_INTEGER is a Windows feature. I would always prefer the compiler feature, for the implementation to be as platform independent as possible. If you need manipulation as an integer and it it larger than 64 bits, then I would sugest you created a class for that.
Rilhas
|
|
|
|
|
You will need a specialized library for that kind of integer precision. If the LGPL license is not a problem, then go ahead and try gmp[^]. I've used it, and I found it to be quite powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
I have developed a set of classes spread across several header and source files. Now heres the thing, I want to be able to #include just a single header file and not have to add all the files to the project. Obviously, when the source files are not added to the project the linker complains. Is there a workaround? I know a lib file could be created but I don't really want to do that if I can help it.
|
|
|
|
|
the linker can get the compiled code from a .LIB, it can get it from .OBJs as part of the project, or it can get it from .OBJs compiled outside the project.
Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you create a header file and include all of your spread out classes in that header, then just include that consolidated header into your project?
Why is common sense not common?
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
I have that same problem very often, since I always generate lib files, which sometimes come from various libs and sources from the start. So I frequently need to merge ".h" files together, in order to get a single ".lib"+".h" pair.
The solution is very simple. The DOS command "copy" can be used to copy multiple files together. The line "copy a.h+b.h+c.h d.h" will copy "a, "b", and "c" into "d". You can automate the copy process by typing it in the "Post-build step" (or post build event in VC8). If you do that, then everytime you build your project the files will be merged automatically.
That works fine if the files you are merging include only system files. If they include specific files then you must remove the inclusion statements. I created a program to do text replacements inside text files, so I add it to the post build step to replace #include " by //#include " (I use the " to diferentiate from #include <, which should not be removed). Putting the replace application in the path makes it easy to do this in all my projects.
Rilhas
|
|
|
|
|
I am writting a DLL, and want to provide a function so that Client can query
DLL version by calling this function.
As you already know, the version number is in the resource file,
I tries LoadString() API call, but failed. Can anyone give some advice??
There are many articles on how to query DLL version given an exe or dll file,
my POINT is , how can I do it inside the dll it self ???
Thanks alot!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
