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 OAA22316; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:15:15 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA23950 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:15:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from slinky.cs.nyu.edu (SLINKY.CS.NYU.EDU [128.122.20.14]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i89CFDQu023437 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:15:14 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slinky.cs.nyu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i89CFDSI024570; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:15:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:15:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: caml-list@inria.fr To: Jean-Christophe Filliatre cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Gripes with array In-Reply-To: <16704.12730.731980.380265@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: References: <200409090310.29295.jon@jdh30.plus.com> <16704.12730.731980.380265@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41404952.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; nyu:99 caml-list:01 filliatre:01 damien:01 stupid:01 nyu:99 ,,,:99 doligez:01 writes:01 sep:01 --':96 heap:03 wrote:03 slightly:03 layout:04 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Jean-Christophe Filliatre wrote: > Damien Doligez writes: > > > > > But I must agree with you: this is definitely too small and we could > > > imagine that, when the tag says a block is an array, the size is > > > stored within the first (or the last) field instead. > > > > The last, really? > > How stupid I am! I was thinking of not adding an extra addition to the > array access, keeping the first array element at field 0 but it is of > course ridiculous. I believe the usual solution for this is to store the array size at negative offset from the array header, but that changes the heap layout slightly, and affects the GC logic, among other things... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw ------------------- 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