[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: small integers
- To: Christopher Fry <cfry@MIT.EDU>
- Subject: Re: small integers
- From: Scott_Fahlman@SEF1.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 14:41:33 -0400
- Cc: info-dylan@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 09 Oct 92 13:23:50 -0500. <9210091727.AA09721@MIT.EDU>
But for this integer problem, there are now 64 bit microprocessors.
If this represents a real trend, then suppose you just consider that
Dylan users that care about speed will have a 64 bit machine and the
"small" integers will be a LOT bigger than the 28 bits or so now common.
This will alleviate at least some of the need for bignums.
If these users (and the builders of the languages they run on) decide to
use 64-bit immediate types and pointers and not try to save space and
swapping by sticking to 32 bits for most things. Time will tell. There
was a time when people were tempted to stick with 16 bits, even though 32
bits were newly available. Unix and C are polluted with the residue of