On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:57:16PM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > But it is the lower bit that is ignored, no, si i guess incrementing an
> > ocaml integer by 1, correspond to incrementing the machine integer by
> > two, and would set the overflow flag in the processor status register
> > all the same, would it not ? 
> 
> Yes, except that not all processors have overflow flags.  The Alpha
> and the MIPS don't, for instance.  Integer arithmetic modulo a power

Didn't know that. (Mostly i know about powerpc and M68K assembly only).

Mmm, Is that why these processors are faster on number crunshing ? Or
better said, a consequence of designing these processors fro being fast
at number crunshing ?

> of 2 is unpleasant for certain applications (and very useful for
> others, e.g. hash functions and cryptography), but this is really all
> what today's processors offer.

Did you ever got hand on a MAJC processor, which supposedly has an extra
bit for GC purpose, or something such ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
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