[Vm-dev] Re: urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:36:18 UTC 2009
Come on original Slang developers. 'Fess up. I need to know what your
thought process was in making shifts unsigned so that I can change it
without too much hard work. Pretty please.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm being bitten by Slang's treatment of bitShift: & >>. In both cases
> (generateBitShift:on:indent: & generateShiftRight:on:indent:) Slang
> generates an unsigned shift by explicitly casting the shifted expression to
> usqInt. I can understand the benefit of having an unsigned shift. But
> there are times when one really needs a signed shift. Further, the
> Smalltalk versions of both bitShift: and >> are signed shifts.
> Dare I change e.g. generateShiftRight:on:indent: to leave the expression
> alone and generate either a signed or an unsigned shift based on the
> variable's declaration? Or must I live with a maddening cCode: '(signed)'
> inSmalltalk:  carbuncle?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vm-dev