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 LAA25498; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:20:38 +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 LAA25809 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:20:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.exomi.com (mail.exomi.com [217.169.64.72]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h329Ka502733 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:20:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from exomi.com (oxy.exomi.com [10.0.20.56]) by mail.exomi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E965D03; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:20:35 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:20:35 +0300 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr To: Andreas Rossberg From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen In-Reply-To: <3E8AA59B.6040008@ps.uni-sb.de> Message-Id: <5C1B1782-64EC-11D7-8D42-000393863F70@exomi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 bug:01 printf:01 rossberg:01 incompatible:01 generic:01 boxing:01 shuffling:01 approaches:01 polymorphic:01 fewer:02 initialize:02 pointer:03 wrote:03 optimizing:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wednesday, Apr 2, 2003, at 11:55 Europe/Helsinki, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > I'm afraid such a scheme is incompatible with polymorphism, where a > slot may or may not be a pointer, depending on the actual > instantiation. Still, polymorphic code must be able to operate > uniformingly in both cases, i.e. the slot may not be shuffled around. For generic code, it obviously requires either boxing or specialized versions of the code, as I suggested in a different message. I don't particularly like the pointer-count/shuffling idea, it was just an example of something that would require far fewer instructions to initialize compared to the bitmap. The main difference between the approaches I've been thinking of and what Brian Hurt has been suggesting is that he's thinking of externalizing the tag bit while I'm thinking about taking a basically boxed approach and optimizing away boxing in as many cases as possible. ------------------- 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