[plt-dev] performance-oriented unsafe operations (v4.2.1.8)

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 3 12:40:16 EDT 2009

If the operations in the science collection have the loops inside
them, then it probably wouldn't hurt to add a check at boundary and
you can make them safe, even thought the depend on the unsafe


On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Doug Williams
<m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> And, given your post on the JIT optimizations for unsafe operations, I can
> see where they are truly unsafe (in terms of possibly crashing instead of
> just erroring.) When I make the changes to use the unsafe-fl/unsafe-fx
> operations, I'll change to using unsafe- as a prefix for the science
> collection operations.
> Doug
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:59:01 -0600, Doug Williams wrote:
>> > Would it be better to call
>> > the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'?
>> > Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to
>> > avoid
>> > some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit.
>> Despite the distinction between unsafety for performance and unsafety
>> to get at new things, I like having all unsafe operations marked the
>> same way. Also, "unchecked" doesn't sound dangerous enough to me.
>> So, you make a good point, but I'm still in favor of "unsafe".

Posted on the dev mailing list.