[BUG]LargeIntegers plugin
Andrew C. Greenberg
werdna at gate.net
Fri Dec 31 19:36:08 UTC 1999
>"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
> >
> > Even after installing the [FIX][ENH] in Stephan's routines and
> > recompiling the plugin, the following computations behave erratically:
> >
> > 16r1FFFFFFFF gcd: 16r100000000000000
> > 16r1000000000000000/16r1000000000000000
> >
> > these freeze, and the following:
> >
> > 16r1000000000000000//16r1000000000000000
> > 16r1000000000000000\\16r1000000000000000
> >
> > return varied results, the first tends to be either 254 or zero, the
> > second tends to be odd negative numbers.
>
>I cannot confirm this; for me these expressions are resulting in
>16r1FFFFFFFF gcd: 16r100000000000000 1
>16r1000000000000000/16r1000000000000000 1
>16r1000000000000000//16r1000000000000000 1
>16r1000000000000000\\16r1000000000000000 0
>as they should.
>
>Did you apply changeset 'Fix_Integer.3.cs' (there have been two
>changesets with bug fixes after the first one...)?
A short answer: 'yes, I think so.'
I just reinstalled each of the changesets on a virgin system, built a
new plugin and the results were identical to those I reported: I
still can't get it to behave properly.
Note that the sample computations DO work correctly once I turn off
the plugin, or with John's Long Integer stuff.
The changesets I have did not have filenames. My e-mail client did
not show them as attachments, but rather as text following your
messages. Accordingly, I copied them into text files and filed them
in.
The "first" e-mail received from was about 75K, and entitled "[ENH]
LargeIntegers plugin," containing two changesets, which I shall refer
to as C1, and CInstall.
The "second" e-mail received was about 66K, and entitled
"[BUG][FIX][ENH] LargeIntegers Plugin," containing a single
changeset, which I shall refer to as C2.
The "third" e-mail received was about 6K, and entitled "Re:
[BUG][FIX]..." containing a single changset, which I shall refer to
as C3.
In filedIn C1, CInstall, C2 and C3, in order, built a plugin,
installed it. SAme results as reported here.
Is it possible you made fixes not reflected in the changesets that
were published? Perhaps you might send (under private mail) a
"current" changeset reflecting the state of the project so we can
confirm whether or not the problem is machine-specific?
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|