On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Stuart Halloway > <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Worse, from the sounds of it the new + isn't exactly the old > >> unchecked-+; it still checks for overflow rather than allowing > >> wrapping. That's going to add a compare-and-branch to every add > >> instruction and halve the speed of those operators on typical > >> hardware. Compare-and-throw-exception is hardly superior to > >> compare-and-box-in-BigInteger, since it's still slow AND now some > >> arithmetic code that used to work but be slow will now explode in your > >> face. > Hacker's Delight shows how the overflow check can be done w/ around 6-8% hit on performance. Clojure implements that strategy. Arguments without any knowledge of the details seems fruitless. Why not try the primitive branch yourself and report back w/ actual experience? I've been using 1.3 exclusively for some time and experienced no trouble. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
