Re: Alternative generic hash function

From: Francois Pottier (Francois.Pottier@inria.fr)
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 15:13:57 MET DST

  • Next message: Ken Wakita: "Re: Alternative generic hash function"

    Dan,

    > Why do you think the overhead would be high?

    I was thinking of a recording mutability per-field, rather than
    per-object. I agree that your proposal seems economical enough.

    > there are plenty of clever tricks you can put in the runtime system
    > that exploit the immutability of objects.

    Would you care to elaborate? I am no compiler expert, but I'm not sure
    why it would be so interesting to have this information at runtime,
    where it is already too late to do code optimization. That would allow
    implementing the `pure' hash function proposed by Manuel Fähndrich, but
    with a cost: the user would have to separate the mutable fields into a
    sub-object, so as to allow the root object to be tagged as immutable.
    Which other tricks do you have in mind?

    -- 
    François Pottier
    Francois.Pottier@inria.fr
    http://pauillac.inria.fr/~fpottier/
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 29 2000 - 22:53:07 MET DST