English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-04-01 (18:58)
From: Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@q...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, Tim Freeman wrote:

> Somebody I don't know said:
> > Or, I suppose, we could 
> > completely redesign Ocaml to use 32-bit ints and do something else to 
> > differentiate ints from pointers :-).
> Then Xavier said:
> >If you can find a "something else" that is faster than systematically
> >boxing the 32-bit ints, you'll be hailed as the savior in compiler
> >circles :-)
> I'm guessing that the standard solution to doing full-word ints with a
> garbage collector is to generate some code for each data structure
> that plugs into the garbage collector and knows what fields are ints
> and what fields are pointers.  That's the way the gcc compiler did it
> as of 3.0.1 or so.  (In that case the code was manually generated.)

I thought they were using Boehm's GC?  Which is conservative, in that if 
it looks like a pointer, it treats it as a pointer.  Note that this means 
that you can't do copying, as you don't dare change the pointers (they 
might be).  This also means that a small percentage of garbage is falsely 
retained because of bogus pointers (although in practice not enough to 
worry about- Boehm has some papers on real world applications).

This is more than good enough for C/C++, but Ocaml puts rather more stress 
on it's GC.  Especially as I remember seeing statistics that your average 
ML program allocates a word of memory every six instructions- an insane 
amount of allocation for a C program.

I was thinking of just a bitmask.  You are always allocating into the
minor heap.  You just define the low 1/32nd of the minor heap a bitmask of
what is a pointer and what isn't.  This would probably slow down
allocation- not by much, would be my prediction, but it would slow down
allocation.  You may gain some of that cost back by not needing to do the
shifts and ors we currently do to deal with the low bit.  I can't predict
what the overall performance delta would be- not even if it will be
positive or negative.

However, I would predict that it will be small enough, even if positive,
to make it not worth the effort.  

For my bitarray code I'd like unboxed 32-bit ints.  Primarily because it'd
allow me to turn my current divides and modulos into shifts and ands.  Or 
rather, have the compiler do it for me.  There is a performance difference 
x/31 and x/32.

But a bigger problem than that, probably (I haven't actually done any 
timing, so I can't say for certain) is repetive divides.  I have a lot of 
code like:
    let bits_per_word = Sys.wordsize - 1;

    let dosomething idx =
        let wordidx = idx / bits_per_word
        and bitidx = idx mod bits_per_word

The code that 3.06 produces for the above uses the idiv instruction twice-
once for the quotient, once for the remainder.  A little optimization 
would have it issued only once, and use both operands.  I played a little 
bit with writting a ldiv function, which let me play with the C interface, 
but produced enough other inefficiencies to make it not worth the effort.  
Ah well.  Minor nit.


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