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 FAA23578; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:17:55 +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 FAA23231 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:17:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.206]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i6E3HqEV027821 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:17:53 +0200 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id d19so484236rnf for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.9.67 with SMTP id 67mr185196rni; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:17:40 -0400 From: John Prevost To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] What's the current status of int32 and int64 boxing? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40F4A5E0.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; prevost:01 prevost:01 boxing:01 unboxed:01 arrays:01 int:01 int:01 types:03 types:03 wondering:04 array:04 boxed:07 john:09 john:09 what's:11 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I was just wondering what exactly to expect for performance with int32 and int64 types in records and arrays right now. Browsing through the archives, I got the feeling that these types currently appear unboxed in record types, but boxed in array types. Is that still correct? John. ------------------- 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