Functional syntax (Was: RE: [mercury-users] Hi, and determini sm)

[Ralph Becket]

>From Richard A. O'Keefe on 06/02/2001 23:57:15
> 
> My experience using bit-fields in C suggests the opposite.
> Any time that fetching/storing a field requires more than a simple
> memory reference instruction, performance suffers.
> Packing to the byte level is fine, especially if the compiler
> re-orders fields in descending order of alignment
> (double[8] > int[4] > short[2] > char[1], to use C terminology).

I'm surprised: I would have imagined that being cache friendly 
through a smaller memory footprint and (more importantly) reducing 
the amount of boxing required would net good results.

--
Ralph Becket      |      MSR Cambridge      |      rbeck at microsoft.com 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------