On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:12:15AM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> the main condition is to use some special Int30# type instead of Int#
> (which we got used to be 32 bits long). i.e. for the type [Char},
> where Char= C# Int30# it will be ok, but for [Int] it will be bad
> (i know about Haskell st
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 01:06:48PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I like this idea - I remember discussing just such a scheme with John
> Launchbury recently. It has a lot in common with the semi-tagging scheme
> we've wanted to implement for some time, where the idea is that you use the
> low bi
L PROTECTED]
| On Behalf Of John Meacham
| Sent: 01 August 2006 02:20
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: returning to cost of Integer
|
| > >However because Int is often unboxable where as Integer is never
| > >unboxable there are certainly programs where the facto
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:57:31PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> John, Integer values in many cases used just to keep small numbers
> which can be larger than 2^32 (2^64) in rare cases. For example,
> "type FileSize = Integer" used in IO library. so it's important to
> keep operations on small In
Sent: 01 August 2006 02:20
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: returning to cost of Integer
|
| > >However because Int is often unboxable where as Integer is never
| > >unboxable there are certainly programs where the factor is
much much
| > >greater than x2 or x
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Behalf Of John Meacham
| Sent: 01 August 2006 02:20
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: returning to cost of Integer
|
| > >However because Int is often unboxable where as Integer is never
| > >unboxable th
> >However because Int is often unboxable where as Integer is never
> >unboxable there are certainly programs where the factor is much much
> >greater than x2 or x3. If the Int can be unboxed into an Int# then the
> >operations are very quick indeed as they are simple machine
> >primitives.
This
A more clever representation of Integer could unbox numbers in big
range.
But that would require some runtime support, I think.
-- Lennart
On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:19 , Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 14:32 +0400, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
Dear GHC developers,
Long ago y
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 14:32 +0400, Serge D. Mechveliani wrote:
> Dear GHC developers,
>
> Long ago you wrote that GHC has made Integer only about 3/2 times
> slower than Int.
> I tested this once, and then all this time I have been relying on this.
> Now, with
> ghc-6.4.1 compi
