Re: [racket-dev] bit-vectors and serialization

2012-12-18 Thread Pierpaolo Bernardi
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote: True, popcount takes about three times as long as it used to. With a few additional changes, popcount on a million-bit bit-vector takes 1.1 ms using bytes, as opposed to 0.35 ms using fxvectors. (Tested on a 64-bit

Re: [racket-dev] bit-vectors and serialization

2012-12-17 Thread Ryan Culpepper
On 12/17/2012 04:30 AM, Jens Axel Søgaard wrote: 2012/12/17 Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu: I'd like to make bit-vectors serializable so I can replace sql-bits with them. I'll deprecate the current sql-bits names but keep them around for a while. The issue is that bit-vectors are implemented

[racket-dev] bit-vectors and serialization

2012-12-16 Thread Ryan Culpepper
I'd like to make bit-vectors serializable so I can replace sql-bits with them. I'll deprecate the current sql-bits names but keep them around for a while. The issue is that bit-vectors are implemented using fxvectors, which are serializable, but simply serializing them will presumably cause

Re: [racket-dev] bit-vectors and serialization

2012-12-16 Thread Robby Findler
If there's no significant performance penalty, then I'd say that we should make things work between 32bit and 64bit builds. (If there is a performance penalty then I'd still want to try to achieve that, at least.) Robby On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ryan Culpepper r...@cs.utah.edu wrote:

Re: [racket-dev] bit-vectors and serialization

2012-12-16 Thread Neil Toronto
I'd call it an error if something couldn't be correctly serialized and deserialized between platforms. Neil ⊥ On 12/16/2012 05:22 PM, Robby Findler wrote: If there's no significant performance penalty, then I'd say that we should make things work between 32bit and 64bit builds. (If there is