On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:05:12 -0500 (CDT)
Brian Hurt <bhurt@spnz.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
> > At the cost of inverting almost everyone's software architecture.  This
> > is ridiculous / stupid in the real world.  It's also baloney on
> > theoretical grounds: for just how many problems do you think it's worth
> > destrying memory coherence by putting structure elements very far apart
> > in memory?  If you only want to do SoA "for some array length, then
> > start over," just how segmented did you think I wanted my programming
> > model to be?
> > 
> > SoA might make sense if a language implementation did it totally behind
> > the scenes, presenting a seemingly AoS interface to programmers.
> > Exposing / locking into SoA is dumb, and yes, Intel is damn dumb.  You
> > don't think they're dumb, look at their chips.  They're good at fab and
> > marketing, they make lousy tack-on "kitchen sink" chips.
> > 

On this topic, you can easily make a C-accessible array of unboxed 32-bit
floats using bigarray.

-- 
Hey, Adam Smith, keep your invisible hands to yourself!

-------------------
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