At Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:17:44 +0100, Noel Welsh wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > With the current memory manager, I don't think there's any potential space > > gain from using 32-bit floats instead of 64-bit floats. Is there any > > other reason to use 32-bit floating point? > > In theory one can get better performance with floats. For example, you > can pack more floats than doubles into the SIMD registers on Intel > chips.
So far, I'm leaning toward splitting "flonum" from "inexact real" and maybe even enabling 32-bit float support by default. Sam and Vincent: Any thoughts on how easy or difficult the change would be for Typed Racket (and its optimizer)? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
