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
Re: [Caml-list] Runtime overflow and what to do
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Runtime overflow and what to do
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 ?


Sven Luther
To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: