From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE42BC37 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:30:13 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAB7q6kpQRFuw/2dsb2JhbADgcYQ9BA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,655,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="35898584" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 30 Oct 2009 21:30:13 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1N3y6t-00080f-Qr; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:30:11 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:30:11 +0000 To: Goswin von Brederlow Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: How to read different ints from a Bigarray? Message-ID: <20091030203011.GA30746@annexia.org> References: <87eiond3of.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <87639zd0m9.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <87tyxj5rkv.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <527cf6bc0910281548s53a00ec9s99402f4249b2d411@mail.gmail.com> <873a52wmu0.fsf@frosties.localdomain> <20091029122043.GA18905@annexia.org> <87iqdyb028.fsf@frosties.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87iqdyb028.fsf@frosties.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; bigarray:01 0100,:01 syntax:01 statically:01 byte:01 2009:98 wrote:01 ints:01 caml-list:01 reuse:01 structures:02 seems:03 bytes:03 optimizing:03 bits:05 On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 06:07:59PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I still can reuse a lot of this. Esspecially the syntax extension > seems like a good idea. Maybe reduced to bytes instead of bits > though. I don't intend to use such fine grained structures to need bit > access. Take a close look at bitstring. In all the cases where it can *statically* determine that accesses are on byte or larger boundaries, it does *not* do any bitfiddling but uses the most efficient, direct C calls possible. We really did spend a lot of time optimizing the bitmatch case. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat