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 QAA14393; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:49:34 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 QAA17055 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:49:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0NFnWT28790; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:49:32 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA17431; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:49:32 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:49:32 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: FD Cc: ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] error opening large file Message-ID: <20020123164932.A16952@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20020115105612.A4497@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from douet@clipper.ens.fr on Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:53:43AM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Would it degrade arithmetic performance a lot if 'int' conformed to 64-bit > arithmetic on all platforms ? > (on a 32-bit cpu, small integers would be unboxed, big integers would be > boxed) I think that the cost of a mixed arithmetic like you outline would be quite high, say, a factor of 5 or 10 on integer-intensive code. If you're ready to pay that cost, it might be worth using arbitrary-precision arithmetic for the "big" integers. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr