On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Jean-Christophe Filliatre wrote:

> Damien Doligez writes:
>  >
>  > > But I must  agree with you: this is definitely too  small and we could
>  > > imagine  that, when the  tag says  a block  is an  array, the  size is
>  > > stored within the first (or the last) field instead.
>  >
>  > The last, really?
>
> How stupid I am! I was thinking of not adding an extra addition to the
> array access, keeping the first array  element at field 0 but it is of
> course ridiculous.

I believe the usual solution for this is to store the array size at
negative offset from the array header, but that changes the heap layout
slightly, and affects the GC logic, among other things...
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing
whatever you think is worth doing."  -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw

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