Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from October 2002
At 6:25 PM -0400 10/21/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 15:11, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Okay, I'm about ready to just bite the bullet and declare that
>> INTVALs have to be 64 bit integers.
>
>Which INTVALs?
I registers.
>INTVAL, IMHAOSBRPO[1], is overused internally.
>I see little relative performance and size damage if INTVAL is made 64
>bits and relegated only to user-space math as long as the internals
>(pointer-tracking, sizes, offsets, etc) are left as native. You can
>check and cast when numbers cross over. OTOH, converting all of the
>internals to 64-bit is probably not such a good idea.
>
>Of course, I registers are probably being used for both uses completely
>independent of each other.
Yeah, and they don't need to be. Most of the internals can leave
native integers to be whatever's most convenient and fastest
>Or did I miss the point on wherefore 64-bit?
Nope, that's pretty much it.
At this point, I think I've given up on requiring 64 bit ints. If
they're rare enough, then they can just be in PMCs and be done with
it. We can always revisit that decision later if it's really
important.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next