On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Simon Marlow <[email protected]> wrote: > I think by (1) you mean mutable variables containing unboxed values, right?
Yes. > I normally use an unboxed array of length 1 for these. There's not much > overhead - only an extra word in the heap compared to implementing them > natively. I'm guessing you care more about the overhead of the operations > than the space overhead of the counter itself, and a 1-element unboxed array > should be just fine in that respect. I will run some benchmarks. If it turns out that using an unboxed array is costly, what would it take to get real mutable variables containing unboxed values? -- Johan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
