[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t |
Date: |
14 Jun 2001 02:33:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.102 |
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <address@hidden> writes:
> union scm_word {
> unsigned long tag;
> void *ptr;
> long sl;
> unsigned long ul;
> };
Yeah, it's tempting to use a union, but I think we had performance
problems with it. It didn't nearly optimize as well as using an
integral type. Or something. When you set SCM_TYPING_STRICTNESS to
2, you get a definition for SCM that uses a union, but Guile can't be
fully compiled with that setting.
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, (continued)
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/13
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/13
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t,
Marius Vollmer <=
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Rob Browning, 2001/06/14
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/14
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/14