[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bignum branch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: bignum branch |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:24:31 +0300 |
> From: Robert Pluim <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:10:39 +0200
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> The interpreter is fine. ccl.el assumes that 'ash' will truncate its
> result, which is no longer true when using bignums. Truncating all ash
> operations to 28 bits in ccl.el fixes this particular error for me,
> but the resulting CCL programs are not identical:
Why is it important that the CCL programs be identical?
Or maybe we should have a variant of 'ash' that does truncate, since
other callers might expect the same?
- Re: bignum branch, (continued)
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/13
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/13
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/13
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/13
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/07/15
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/07/18
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/18
- Re: bignum branch, Stefan Monnier, 2018/07/18
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/18
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/18
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/18