From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,56525db28240414a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.74.40 with SMTP id q8mr1647086pav.19.1343316814812;
        Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 b9ni65149668pbl.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ramfeed-1.ams.xsnews.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!reality.xs3.de!news.stack.nl!cs.uu.nl!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!usenet-fr.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:18:11 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficient Sequential Access to Arrays
References: <9d4d4463-4c7e-40f4-a167-933eb056c6a5@googlegroups.com>
 <ju6u82$8k0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <ca31d36f-3de5-4489-b854-8c87c6ecfa53@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca31d36f-3de5-4489-b854-8c87c6ecfa53@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <5007ecf3$0$9507$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2012 13:18:11 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7f5335aa.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=E8==@n_2[[dfF8a^:6>b7eic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`[A^MO;>XjJgnc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jm5:dRcj^<CMn
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-07-19T13:18:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 19.07.12 12:41, Keean Schupke wrote:
> What is more of a problem is that the node structure is 32 bytes long, so two nodes fit in a 64bit cache line, and the index operation is shift left by 5. Adding the extra Index word will probably slow things down significantly, unless we can save some space elsewhere in the structure.
> 
> I may be able to replace one Integer with a Short_Int, and use a Short_Int for the index. I think this could be worth trying.

I'll assume it is a 32 bit program already? (As GNAT uses 32 bis
for addresses then, not 64.)