From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5688BC69 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:31:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2U7V3eb032253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:31:04 +0200 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1HXBZa-0002NC-M2; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:30:58 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HXBZX-0001zX-Qd; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:30:55 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: "Yaron Minsky" Cc: "Oliver Bandel" , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] int_of_string bug References: <891bd3390703290927o4e1c6bb5gf8f562fedbc70096@mail.gmail.com> <20070329212931.GG6843@first.in-berlin.de> <891bd3390703291726ue71cfa6re8d4c3d66520e4d9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:30:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <891bd3390703291726ue71cfa6re8d4c3d66520e4d9@mail.gmail.com> (Yaron Minsky's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:26:06 -0400") Message-ID: <878xdfmbm8.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 460CBCB8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bug:01 yaron:01 minsky:01 integer:01 exception:01 caml-list:01 short:01 int:01 string:02 florian:03 overflow:03 overhead:04 problem:05 sequences:05 uses:06 * Yaron Minsky: > That's a problem too, but there is at least a defensible reason for > that, which is that it is expensive to get integer overflow to throw > an exception. i386 and amd64 have hardware support for that, so it's not very expensive. There are pretty short RISC sequences for the checks, too. MLton uses the i386 hardware support, and I think you can disable the checks, so measuring the overhead shouldn't be too hard.