Browse thread
RE: questions about costs of nativeint vs int
- Brent Fulgham
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2001-01-14 (20:23) |
From: | Brent Fulgham <brent.fulgham@x...> |
Subject: | RE: questions about costs of nativeint vs int |
> Do you have any plans to implement unboxed native integers? > There's an interesting paper on the Caml site discussing the performance issues of boxed/unboxed values. From a performance standpoint I believe it indicated boxed values were a better tradeoff (between performance/flexibility), though the C integration issues you mention below were not (IIRC) discussed. > I would really have liked to see this happen, because it > would have made integration with C both easier and more efficient. > Couldn't a wrapper generator of some kind make this less problematic? For instance, the MzScheme implementation provides various C Macros and other tools to get at the boxed values: int scheme_get_int_val(Scheme_Object* v); And some predicates to decide what kind of object you are dealing with: int SCHEME_INTP(Scheme_Object* v); // Returns true/false. SWIG can be used to auto-generate interface code using these routines to provide a C/Scheme bridge. This should be possible in OCaml as well. -Brent