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] Looking for a real array
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@q...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Looking for a real array
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Yes, I'm coming from the land of evil optimizers. :) I spent a large portion 
> of my youth hand-optimizing 68k assembly! I was really shocked when I found 
> out about 2 years ago that some FORTRAN compilers could do the tricks I spent 
> hours on the Amiga to perform!

Wow.  I was stuck on the x86.  I've never quite gotten over Amiga envy. 
 Not that I haven't spent some time hand-optimizing x86 code, now and
again. :-)

> To be serious, I was concerned about this fact because I have, if you recall, 
> started writing a graph library. Unfortunately, it makes a big deal of space 
> and time difference when I use pointers to integers rather than simply 
> integers! In fact, my advisor would shoot me if I did the former. Space loss 
> is evident. But the worse case comes from losing "cache coherence", a fine 
> point that can change the speed 5 fold sometimes!!!!! Memory hierarchy is 
> like magic!

I may be confused, but I thought integers were unboxed in arrays (not 
BigArrays, just arrays).  Unless you mean references to integers?

> Thanks to Brian Hurt and David Gurr who wrote off-the list that
> bigarrays would work for me. It looks like Bigarrays can do unboxed
> arrays of integers.

Different Brian, I think.


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