[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t |
Date: |
13 Jun 2001 23:08:40 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
I recall a discussion about that, but if a union would be a Right
Thing, then we might want to check back on the performance every now
and then. Sooner or later the compilers ought to catch up, unless
there's a Hard Problem here.
Which reminds me. If we don't have it already, it'd be kinda nice to
start accumulating code (if we can think of any) in a "make benchmark"
target -- or perhaps that should be a separate top-level module. This
would be good for regression testing.
--
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, (continued)
- 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, 2001/06/13
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t,
Rob Browning <=
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/14
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/14