[MLton] Packing and IntInf

Daniel C. Wang danwang@CS.Princeton.EDU
Wed, 19 May 2004 12:49:12 -0400

Perhaps, a more interesting question to ask. Is given the new bit-packing 
optimization. Is there any compelling reason not to implement IntInf.int 
purely in SML and ditch the GNU GMP stuff. (Other than all the work needed 
to implement things again.... )

BTW is the GNU GMP stuff the main reason MLTon is licensed under the GPL?
Not that I have a problem with the GPL, but just curious of there GMP is the 
only reason.

Stephen Weeks wrote:
{stuff deleted}
> Anyways, if we're gonna define IntInf.int on the SML side and pass it
> to the C side, it will certainly impose constraints on the compiler.
> If we go this route we should consider changing the interface to the C
> IntInf routines so that it is known statically as part of the type of
> the C routine whether we are passing (or returning) a Small or a Big.
> Then, we will only be passing Int.int or word vector, which we already
> support in the FFI, and hence won't impose any new constraints.