Enables int64 Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and modulus.
This submission enables the following operations for the int64 and uint64 data types:
* Addition
* Subtraction
* Multiplication (elementwise and matrix)
* Division (elementwise only)
* mod, abs, bitshift
See the published file for more details.
1.13  Removed the compiled *.mexw32 and *.mexw64 

1.12  Added colon operator for 1:n constructs 

1.11  Updating according to comments by Jan Simon. Thanks!


1.10  Added matrix multiplication (not fast compared to double) 

1.8  *Added support for the uint64 datatype as well


1.6  Description update 

1.2  Added support for the bitshift function 

1.1  Update according to suggestions from Bruno Luong: Out out memory check and requiring that the dimensions of the arrays matches exactly (not just number of elements). 
dmitrii (view profile)
Hello! Tried to run the script, but there was an error:
int64 plus...
int64 minus...
int64 times...
int64 matrix multiplication...
Internal error 1028 line 163
incorrect char m
leal ( movl 40(%ebp),wildcard??? Error using ==> mex at 218
Unable to complete successfully.
Error in ==> compile_int64 at 10
mex int64matmul.c
Has anyone encountered this? How to avoid?
craq (view profile)
Great functionality for those of us with pre2011b versions. I had the same error as Vincent, and his solution worked for me too. Off the top of my head I couldn't figure out how to do the lshift and rshift, but I don't actually need them.
Jon (view profile)
Seamless use. Well done Petter and thanks!
Petter (view profile)
Vincent: Interesting. I thought the standard allowed the pasting of operators. Is this not true?
Vincent (view profile)
Hi Petter,
Thanks for your great package.
It didn't compile out of the box, however.
I tried to compile this on a Debian Stable machine, having gcc4.3.2 installed.
The compilation of the first mex function aborts with the following error:
int64operation.c:38:1: error: pasting "OPERATOR" and "=" does not give a valid preprocessing token
I had to apply the following modifications:
Current situation:
One macro in each operator source files (#define OPERATOR +) and the OPERATOR_EQ defined as OPERATOR ## = in the (u)int64operation.c source files.
New situation:
Use two separate macro functions.
For example, the contens of int64plus.c is now:

#define UNARY_OPERATOR(a,b) ((a) += (b))
#define BINARY_OPERATOR(a,b) ((a) + (b))
#include "int64operation.c"

Where the OPERATOR and OPERATOR_EQ were used in int64operation.c:

c[i] OPERATOR_EQ b[i];
becomes
UNARY_OPERATOR(c[i], b[i]);

c[i] = a[0] OPERATOR b[i];
becomes
c[i] = BINARY_OPERATOR(a[0], b[i]);

I don't know if this works for every compiler around there, but for me, this works like a charm...
If you're interested, I can send you my modified version to the address specified in the README.txt file, so that you can more easily update your package.
Jan Simon (view profile)
Although INT64 values can be very large, you can still get an overflow. While Matlab uses saturated arithmetic for integer types, your tools do not. It is important to mention this in the documentation. Implementing a saturation (means: value is the max or min INT value if it exceeds the valid range) is not trivial, and omitting it is no reason to reduce the 5 star rating.
You mention precompiled in the ReadMe  where can I find them?
Following Loren's block about inplace operations, I suggest to replace e.g.:
function c = abs(a) c = a; end
by: function a = abs(a), end
Jan Simon (view profile)
Thank you for the fast update!
Igor (view profile)
Thanks a lot for this. Could you also add support for _colonobj so that one doesn't get a "Undefined function or method '_colonobj' for input arguments of type 'uint64'" when writing 1:n
Petter (view profile)
1. The reason the check is made in an .m file is that otherwise the MEX files would have to be quite verbose with lots of conversions from various types to int64.
2. I'll implement this optimization
3. Same here
4. OK, I'll change that
5. OK, I guess I could follow Matlab here
6. long long works on GCC, MSVC++ and LCC and feels more standard
7. True, I'll change that
Thanks for the suggestions.
Jan Simon (view profile)
A really needed and useful submission!
The efficiency can be improved significantly:
1. checkinputs: "if length(size(a)) ~= length(size(b)) ... if ~all(size(a) == size(b))" can be combined to: "if isequal(size(a), size(b))". Performing the check in the Mex and omitting the intermediate call of the Mfunctions would reduce the overhead.
2. (u)int64abs: At first the input is duplicated to plhs[0]. Then it is not necessary to copy positive values from the input to the output. A faster approach:
void mexFunction(...) {
signed long long *c, *cf;
plhs[0] = mxDuplicateArray(prhs[0]);
if (!plhs[0]) ...
c = (signed long long *) mxGetData(plhs[0]); // not mxGetPr
cf = c + mxGetNumberOfElements(plhs[0]);
for ( ; c < cf; c++) {
if (*c < 0L) {*c = *c; }
}
}
3. Similar improvements for plus, minus, times, rdived: If the 1st input is duplicated already, the operation does not need to access the values from the inputs again. So these lines in (u)int64operations.c:
c[i] = a[i] OPERATOR b[i]
can be changed to the faster:
c[i] OPERATOR b[i]
using e.g. "+=" as operator instead of "+".
4. TMW suggests to use mxGetData instead of mxGetPr to get a pointer to nonDOUBLE arrays. But at least both method works currently.
5. Matlab's MOD can handle 0 as second input, and a user might expect this for the (U)INT64 version also.
6. "long long" is supported by the LCC compiler shipped with Matlab. For (all) other compilers, you can use uint64_T and int64_T as defined in "tmwtypes.h".
7. The check for division by zero can be included in the same loop as the operation to save time.
Petter (view profile)
Never mind, I misunderstood what you meant. Implementing a crude A*B is very easy, so I might do that.
Petter (view profile)
Array multiplication .* is already implemented.
John D'Errico (view profile)
I can't test this myself, so I cannot rate it. But if it now prevents A*B when A and B are both matrices, neither of which is a scalar, then this is good if it would otherwise have done the wrong thing. Better of course is to implement array multiplication too (perhaps in a future version.) Regardless, there have been a few times recently when I wanted to have int64 operations defined, so this is a good addition to MATLAB.
Petter (view profile)
John, the reason the * operator is included at all is because it is desirable to support operations like
a = int64(2);
b = int64( [1 2; 3 4] );
c = a * b
That is the reason * was included. The next update will issue an error if both a and b are matrices. Thank you for your suggestions.
Derek O'Connor (view profile)
John  Thanks for pointing out that Int64 matrix multiplication is elementwise. I should have been more careful, given that the description clearly states that "multiplication and division are elementwise only". This of course explains the O(n^2) behavior.
On a more general point, I wish there was a consistent standard for matrix multiplicaton. For example, in OMatrix, C= A*B is the same as Matlab, but C=A^2 gives cij = (aij)^2. This is really confusing. In Fortran 90, C=A*B gives cij = aij*bij.
John D'Errico (view profile)
Derek  it points out that even though the function mtimes is provided, this package only claims to support ELEMENTWISE operations.
The quadratic behavior tells me that this code did not do a true matrix multiply. Did you check that A64*B64 was correct in your test? Element wise multiplication will take O(N^2) flops, whereas a matrix multiply (as * is supposed to generate) is O(N^3).
I would have preferred that an error be generated if you use * on a pair of matrices, when that operation will not return the proper result. This would normally make me downrate this code. Since I cannot test it without compiling it, I won't give any rating at all.
Derek O'Connor (view profile)
This seems to be an excellent package. I used it to test matrix multiplication
and obtained very surprising results : multiplying two 10^4x10^4 int64 matrices took about 2 secs while two doubles took about 35 secs. The double matmult used the Math Kernel and all 8 cores while the int64 did not use the Math Kernel.
Also, a 2degree polyfit of the int64 matmult times was very good, i.e., t(n) is O(n^2)!
Can anyone enlighten me? Here is the test function:
function times = TimesInt64(v,degree);
% Test matrix multiplication using int64arithmetic
% int64arithmetic compiled with Microsoft Visual C++ 2008
% Dell Precision 690, 2xQuadcore Xeon 5345, 2.3GHz, 16GB
% Windows Vista 64
% Example : >> times = TimesInt64(1:15,2);
% Derek O'Connor Sept 2009
nvals = v'*10^3;
times = zeros(length(nvals),1);
c = intmax('int64');
for k = 1:length(nvals)
n = nvals(k);
A64=int64(floor(c*rand(n,n)));
B64=int64(floor(c*rand(n,n)));
tic; A64*B64; times(k) = toc;
end;
p=polyfit(nvals,times,degree);
ptimes = polyval(p,nvals);
plot(nvals,times,'.',nvals,ptimes,'')
% End Function TimesInt64(v,degree)
% n times (secs)
% 1000 0.0176
% 2000 0.06972
% 3000 0.15354
% 4000 0.34136
% 5000 0.50145
% 6000 0.63655
% 7000 0.9838
% 8000 1.2829
% 9000 1.5717
% 10000 2.0059
% 11000 2.4728
% 12000 3.0439
% 13000 3.4914
% 14000 4.2588
% 15000 4.9525
% p(x) = 0.098649  5.6075e005*x + 2.5027e008*x^2
Bruno Luong (view profile)
What a relief to have finally a basic int64 arithmetic operators supported.
Petter (view profile)
I used Microsoft Visual C++ Express 2008 to compile the library. "long long" _is_ supported in later versions of Visual C++. Also, "long long" is more supported by other compilers and will probably end up in the next C++ standard as well.
Bruno Luong (view profile)
It is also puzzling this can work
a=int64([0 1; 2 3])
b=int64([4 5 6 7]')
a+b
Bruno Luong (view profile)
After a quick look I have few comments that I wish the author could correct:
As stated, the C Mex can't be compiled by the popular MS VISUAL C (type LONG LONG must be replaced by __int64)
It is dangerous when no checking is performed after mxDuplicateArray that could returns NULL and results in a crash if there is not enough memory.