From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p7O8AWAX027099 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:10:32 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYBAHWxVE7RVdg2kGdsb2JhbABCp2oIFAEBAQEJCQ0HFAQhgUABAQEBAxICLAEbHgMMBgULDS4hAQERAQUBHAYTIqRlCow5glWFOzuIbQIDBoZDBIdbiz6Jd4JlPINo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,274,1312149600"; d="scan'208";a="116982288" Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 24 Aug 2011 10:10:26 +0200 Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so977827qwc.27 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SjxJcqrXOVg94PqAtIPqWWGbI+LpbYteIKdZzjcO/a4=; b=dKXNKfmcUJktOSliIVPCvpa78VKd+ujFDucTthUDRussx96dkcQfycov5SQYZyOP5g 5AFSNY30cRseiDAiS32QlDAAY7THBpwzmsjwrxXcxp4phM3Y5BEbjz4+FLQ2MEAMVk4Q 9sCeSDBPq9Wj4Lzlh7wmnBou9BIE+o8X0Lc54= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.204.7 with SMTP id fk7mr2987668qab.207.1314173425948; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.76.229 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:10:25 +0400 Message-ID: From: Dmitry Bely To: Caml List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Caml-list] Re: Int32 vs float unboxing On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Dmitry Bely wrote: > In the code below "s" reference is unboxed in sum_float loop, but not > in sum_in32. Why? Answering to myself: because there are some specific float-oriented optimizations that does not affect Int32.t (although I don't see why they cannot be applied to Int32.t as well). Anyway, I decided that implementing XTEA cipher in pure OCaml is a bad idea, so I still can live without efficient Int32 calculations ;-) - Dmitry Bely