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 NAA03923; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:50 +0200 (MET DST) 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 NAA03919 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g8QBEm510250 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr (liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr [132.227.81.128]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.12.5/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id g8QBEljR039644 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from liafa0p.liafa.jussieu.fr (liafa0p.liafa.jussieu.fr [132.227.81.252]) by liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr (8.12.2/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id g8QBEl6N006910 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from (durak@localhost) by liafa0p.liafa.jussieu.fr (8.11.6/jtpda-5.4) id g8QBElM09779 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:47 +0200 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:14:47 +0200 From: Berke Durak To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] boxing of floats in records/classes Message-ID: <20020926111447.GA8887@liafa.jussieu.fr> References: <200209250230.g8P2UJI09079@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu> <20020926100103.C30246@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020926100103.C30246@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Antivirus: scanned by sophie at shiva.jussieu.fr Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 10:01:03AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > > Quick question: are mutable float fields in records or classes > boxed? > > Yes, with the exception of records that have all fields of type float. > In the latter case, the record is represented like a float array, with > each float unboxed. > > > If so, why? > > Mainly because the runtime system and garbage collector support either > blocks of pointers or blocks of unboxed data, but not mixed blocks > containing both pointers and unboxed data. Would it then be false to assume that if you have many floats in a record, grouping them into a subrecord would reduce the boxing overhead ? -- Berke Durak ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners