From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA04223 for caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:07:43 +0100 (MET) Resent-Message-Id: <200003241607.RAA04223@pauillac.inria.fr> Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA30627 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:59:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA00086; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:59:03 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA10046; Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:59:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <20000324165903.36262@pauillac.inria.fr> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:59:03 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: Jacques Garrigue , maxs@in.ot.com.au Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Unsigned integers? References: <38D97CB6.1465CD8@in.ot.com.au> <20000324115017Y.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1 In-Reply-To: <20000324115017Y.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>; from Jacques Garrigue on Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 11:50:17AM +0900 Resent-From: weis@pauillac.inria.fr Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:07:43 +0100 Resent-To: caml-redistribution@pauillac.inria.fr > By the way, is there any plan to do for int32 the same kind of > optimizations as are done for floats (no boxing/unboxing in the middle > of a computation)? Already done? Already done! For int32, nativeint, and even for int64 on 64-bit processors. The only difference between boxed integers and floats, as far as boxing elimination in ocamlopt goes, is that there is a hack to unbox floats in arrays, but no corresponding hack for arrays of boxed integers. As Jacques said, the new Bigarray module does provide arrays of unboxed int32 / nativeint / int64, although of a different type than the standard Caml arrays. - Xavier Leroy