Matthew, > Your plan sounds workable, but I wonder whether you'll want the JIT to
unbox extnums in the same way that it unboxes flonums. That's not as easy as the rest of the plan, but generalizing Racket's unboxing machinery to deal with more types is something that we can consider.
Surely we will need the JIT to unbox extnums. Could you please tell why it is harder than the rest of the plan? Ten bytes worse than eight? Alignment issues? Best regards, Dmitry ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
