Am 04.10.2016 um 16:19 schrieb [email protected]: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> We could still get rid of the tagged pointer type. After some more >>> >> >> >>>> thought on the matter, I believe they're mostly worthless. >>> >>> "They" means tagged pointers? I agree. >>> >> >> I continue to disagree. Tagged pointers make it possible to have >> dynamically type-safe or type-dispatched treatment of C objects referred to >> by the pointer side. Logically it is equivalent to encapsulate the raw >> pointer in a record, but record dereference is much slower than pointer >> dereference for whatever reason, so it adds substantial overhead. > > "Substantial" may be a bit strong, though the overhead is indeed there. > AFAIK, tagged pointers are seldom used. If indeed they were used instead > of raw pointers everywhere in the FFI (say, by generally tagging each > pointer of a known type), then the situation would be different, of course. > > I don't feel strong enough to assess this. Any takers?
At least some eggs would break. However, so far I found only iup among those I'm using. /Jörg _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
