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] 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: -- (:)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Bug? Printf, %X and negative numbers

> Most blocks are small, so one could make a scheme that fits the number
> of pointers into the current block header for small blocks and uses an
> extra word for larger blocks.  This would have the desirable side
> effect of increasing the limit on the size of arrays.  Code that
> accesses inside a block often knows the size of the block it's
> accessing, so you can often precompute whether that extra word is
> there and avoid taking a branch to decide whether to skip it.

Code that accesses fields of a block always knows the size unless it's 
an array (or string), in which case bounds checking also needs to be 
done, but it couldn't contain mixed data anyhow.

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