[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bignum branch

From: Robert Pluim
Subject: Re: bignum branch
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:00:54 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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?

The source is the same, so I assumed that any difference in the output
is a bug. I donʼt think ccl has changed much.

> Or maybe we should have a variant of 'ash' that does truncate, since
> other callers might expect the same?

It an obvious assumption to make in a system that only has
fixnums. The issue is probably not confined to 'ash'.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]