Browse thread
[Caml-list] assertions or exceptions?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Unboxing options, was RE: assertions or exceptions? |
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 07:17, skaller wrote: I should rephrase this: > This is wrong. The representation being suggested is: > > None -> NULL > Some 'a -> pointer to 'a > > Clearly this represntation is faithful and nothing > more than an interpretation of the corresponding C > concept. > > Some Some 1 is obviously distinct from Some 1 as reqiuired: > pointer to pointer to 1 is distinct from pointer to 1. > Some None is a pointer to NULL, which is distinct from > None which is just NULL. What I'm saying is that the idea is not unboxing, but untagging. Some 'a isn't a pointer to an 'a heap value, but a pointer to a CAML_VALUE which is a pointer to a heap value 'a. I don't see how the GC could support this in Ocaml, since Some 'a isn't a CAML_VALUE since it points to a box, not a heap object -- but in Felix it would work because the GC uses RTTI to locate pointers. So the idea is fine, but won't work with Ocaml GC. There's be no saving dereferencing a Some value here. The saving would be that simply loading the value into a register would set a condition code in the processor, avoiding any need to check the value of a tag word. Ugg .. sorry for the confusion :( -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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