tomasz.zielonka: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 02:16:22PM +1100, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote: > > We believe so, and its a bug if this is not the case. > > > > The src documents the encoding format used for each type (we were unable > > to attach haddocks to instances.. grr.) > > > > All data is encoded in Network order, and extended to 64 bits for word > > sized values (like Int). It should be possible to encode a structure > > with ghc on x86, and decode it on a sparc64 running hugs. > > Did you consider using an encoding which uses variable number of bytes? > If yes, I would be interested to know your reason for not choosing such > an encoding. Efficiency?
Yes, efficiency. If you look in tests/ there's a pretty heavy duty benchmark we use to compare against C. Sticking to word sized writes where possible is a big one (up to 10 fold). Interestingly, I did write an aligned-only, host-endian layer, and it was only some 10% faster on x86 over network order code. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
