English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] bigarrays and toplevel on Win32?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-03-05 (19:14)
From: Chris Hecker <checker@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] bigarrays and toplevel on Win32?

>This is a known bug in OCaml 3.00.  A simple fix is described here:
>  http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs/fixed?id=94
>and of course this will be fixed in OCaml 3.01.

Ack, sorry, the one place I didn't look was the bug list.  Sorry to waste your time.

>The party line on unsafe array accesses is unclear: on the one hand,
>we do not want to encourage their use, as it can break type safety and
>dramatically reduce the safety of the programs; on the other hand,
>they are handy when benchmarking against C or Fortran :-)

I'd like to have the choice.  I prefer unsafe_get/unsafe_set to -unsafe because it lets me choose where to be risky.  

It doesn't actually look like it would be too hard for me to make -unsafe work in the source (adding the unsafe_(set|get) would be harder, it seems).  Couldn't I just have ccmgen.ml's bigarray_indexing function not generate Ccheckbound ops if Clflags.fast is set?

>I'll keep that in mind for 3.02.

Cool.  Is there an autmated or semi-automated way to do these primitive additions, or do you manually do it?


To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr