[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'.
Robert
- 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, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/07/17
- Re: bignum branch,
Robert Pluim <=
- 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
- Re: bignum branch, Robert Pluim, 2018/07/13
Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/07/13