caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp>
To: monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:12:44 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010604191244V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5lk82vhhc1.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu>

From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu>
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom  <tom7ca@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I think widespread adoption of 64bit machines will
> > make a huge difference for polymorphic and dynamic
> > languages, however.  32 bits is kind of tight for
> 
> But boxing will force everything to 64bit, thus the "double memory use"
> will be slightly more noticeable with those languages than with C.

I'm not sure this would matter that much.
Even in C, people are going to play safe, and oversize everything...
Just considering code size, alpha was already about twice as big as
other architectures. But it might be better to compare Sparc/32 vs
Sparc/64.

Anyway, if the real problem is about data size (and not code size),
you can still use Bigarray for your raw data, and have the same sizes
as in C. With the extra advantage that your 32-bit integers have all
their bits when converted to 63, and for 64-bit integers you generally
do not care about the topmost one. So I would expect Tom's statement
to be right: 64-bit is really a plus for functional programming in
general, and ocaml in particular.

Cheers,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr


  reply	other threads:[~2001-06-04 10:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-06-01 18:38 David McClain
2001-06-01 22:51 ` Tom _
2001-06-02  0:10   ` Stefan Monnier
2001-06-04 10:12     ` Jacques Garrigue [this message]
2001-06-04 13:25 David McClain
2001-06-04 19:51 ` William Chesters
2001-06-04 20:05   ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-04 20:15   ` David McClain
2001-06-04 22:34     ` Markus Mottl
2001-06-06 20:13       ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 22:29         ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-07  7:42           ` William Chesters
2001-06-05  7:22     ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-06  6:27       ` David McClain
2001-06-04 22:14   ` Tom _
2001-06-04 22:57     ` Chris Hecker
2001-06-05  2:52     ` Brian Rogoff
2001-06-05 15:02       ` Stefan Monnier
2001-06-05 10:48   ` Tom _
2001-06-06  2:03     ` Hugo Herbelin
2001-06-06  4:04       ` Charles Martin
2001-06-06 18:25         ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 18:35       ` William Chesters
2001-06-06 18:40         ` Patrick M Doane
2001-06-07  1:50         ` Hugo Herbelin
2001-06-07 18:20         ` Tom _

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20010604191244V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp \
    --to=garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).