Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] bigarrays and toplevel on Win32?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] bigarrays and toplevel on Win32?

>This is a known bug in OCaml 3.00.  A simple fix is described here:
>and of course this will be fixed in OCaml 3.01.

Ack, sorry, the one place I didn't look was the bug list.  Sorry to waste your time.

>The party line on unsafe array accesses is unclear: on the one hand,
>we do not want to encourage their use, as it can break type safety and
>dramatically reduce the safety of the programs; on the other hand,
>they are handy when benchmarking against C or Fortran :-)

I'd like to have the choice.  I prefer unsafe_get/unsafe_set to -unsafe because it lets me choose where to be risky.  

It doesn't actually look like it would be too hard for me to make -unsafe work in the source (adding the unsafe_(set|get) would be harder, it seems).  Couldn't I just have's bigarray_indexing function not generate Ccheckbound ops if is set?

>I'll keep that in mind for 3.02.

Cool.  Is there an autmated or semi-automated way to do these primitive additions, or do you manually do it?


To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: