"Luis Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 27/set/2005, at 14:04, Immanuel Litzroth wrote: >>> Hmm, I would assume SBCL/CMUCL translate sb-alien:int and c-call:int >>> to a fixnum already but I can't say that I checked. Is my assumption >>> incorrect? >> >> Not if the int is 32 bits. You get a efficiency not about this when >> compiling >> with speed set to 3. If the int is only 30 bit the note goes away >> and I have >> some code where this was important (ffi to portmidi). > > Ah, right... that makes sense. Anyway this is a pretty specific > optimization, right? I mean, this makes sense only for int and (long) > long. Well, and when one is using long's it's very likely that one > will be handling values bigger than most-positive-fixnum anyway. > > Did I miss any other cases?
nope, that's about it. > >> I think the two different design decisions are best exemplified in >> cmucl >> (lists of objects with finalizers, but when the finalizer is run >> your object >> has already been garbage collected) and lispworks where the object >> is passed >> to the finalizer. > > Cool, thanks. I'll check those out. Thank you! Immanuel _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
