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] implementing bit vectors in OCaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-06-01 (17:02)
From: nr@e...
Subject: [Caml-list] implementing bit vectors in OCaml
We have a program that is spending a lot of time in set operations,
and we're thinking of trying an imperative implementation based on bit vectors.
I would hope that the basis of such an implementation would be an array
of native integers, but on scrutinizing the manual (espeically the chapter
on interfacing to C), I have concluded that such a thing is not possible.
Our choices appear to be

  * An array of native integers, which will be implemented as an array
    of pointers to native integers, because integers are boxed.

  * An array of tagged integers, which will be less efficient as
    dividing by 31 is more expensive than shifting.

How would the gurus recommend that we proceed?  Is there a better,
still efficient data structure for a set of small integers?

Could the compiler gods be persuaded to provide unboxed
representations for arrays of untagged integers, as is already done
for `float array'?


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