From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA28139; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:12:57 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA28322 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:12:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f54ACrX08705 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 12:12:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3/3.7W) with ESMTP id TAA22977; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:12:43 +0900 (JST) To: monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml Speed for Block Convolutions In-Reply-To: <5lk82vhhc1.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <003001c0eaca$01e48220$210148bf@dylan> <20010601225159.84658.qmail@web11901.mail.yahoo.com> <5lk82vhhc1.fsf@rum.cs.yale.edu> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010604191244V.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:12:44 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: "Stefan Monnier" > >>>>> "Tom" == Tom 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