From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rixed@happyleptic.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME 
	autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E467BBAF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnUCAEskhUrUGyoFkWdsb2JhbACacQEBAQEJCwoHEwO4JoQZBYIp
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,381,1246831200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="44676580"
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.5])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2009 17:48:24 +0200
Received: from smtp5-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ED7D48148
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from apc.happyleptic.org (happyleptic.org [82.67.194.89])
	by smtp5-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806B9D48145
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from yeeloong (unknown [82.229.213.209])
	by apc.happyleptic.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B57B334EF
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rixed by yeeloong with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>)
	id 1Mbz0i-0008NX-VB
	for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:08 +0200
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:48:08 +0200
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: OCaml on Mips for IRIX n32 : why not 64bits ?
Message-ID: <20090814154808.GB32179@happyleptic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 mips:01 ocaml:01 irix:02 bits:05 bits:05 arch:05 arch:05 long:06 long:06 registers:08 i'm:09 i'm:09 wondering:09 maybe:10 

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 ?