On 24 Oct 2004 15:18:47 +1000, skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 07:24, Nathaniel Gray wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:31:39 +0900 (JST), Jacques Garrigue
> > <garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> >
> > > Unlucky!
> > > With your example, there is no extra boxing involved.
> > > I.e. (1,3) and Rpos(1,3) and Apos(1,3) all share the same physical
> > > representation (a block with 2 fields).
> > > The problem you describe only occurs when your single constructor has
> > > only one argument.
> >
> > Really??  You're kidding.  That's kind of cool but kind of strange --
> > why does it only optimize for composite types?
> 
> For two arguments, it's a pointer to a pair on the heap.
> For one, its a pointer to a one element tuple on the heap.
> This case might be optimised by replacing the pointer
> with the value stored in that single field, but it isn't.

Right.  As I said in my reply to myself, after thinking for a minute I
figured it out.

-- 
>>>-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------>
>>>-- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->

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