From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: OCaml on Mips for IRIX n32 : why not 64bits ?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090814154808.GB32179@happyleptic.org> (raw)
The question might look stupid, but I'm wondering why uintnat was
not chosen to be "long long" on this architecture.
Maybe the ARCH_SIXTYFOUR version of Ocaml was not ready at that time ?
Or is there a downside at using the full 64bits registers on this arch
that I'm unable to see ?
reply other threads:[~2009-08-14 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090814154808.GB32179@happyleptic.org \
--to=rixed@happyleptic.org \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox