Re: Attempting to unbox struct fields

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > "Thompson, David" writes: > >>> The first thing I noticed is that the patch assumes that doubles are the >>> same size as pointers. Obviously this is not the case on 32-bit >>> systems. What's

Re: Attempting to unbox struct fields

"Thompson, David" writes: >> The first thing I noticed is that the patch assumes that doubles are the >> same size as pointers. Obviously this is not the case on 32-bit >> systems. What's the plan for those systems? > > Yeah, I just hacked this together on my x86_64

Re: Attempting to unbox struct fields

Hi Mark, On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi David, > > "Thompson, David" writes: >> Here's a patch I came up with to enable (and fix where necessary) the >> support for signed integer and double struct fields. > > Great, thanks

Re: Attempting to unbox struct fields

Hi David, "Thompson, David" writes: > Here's a patch I came up with to enable (and fix where necessary) the > support for signed integer and double struct fields. Great, thanks for working on it! This is not a proper review, just a couple of questions and comments. >

Re: Attempting to unbox struct fields

Here's a patch I came up with to enable (and fix where necessary) the support for signed integer and double struct fields. Am I on the right track here? Thanks, - Dave From 8bde5c7018fde91cc7140777107bacfb3febb170 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Thompson Date:

Attempting to unbox struct fields

Hello wingo and list, A couple days ago on #guile, I started a conversation about optimizing some record types I use for linear algebra to take advantage of unboxed arithmetic in the upcoming Guile 2.2. Andy informed me of a temporary hack I could try, but then said that The Right Thing is for