Fwd: [Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:55:30 UTC 2009
and again, forgive the duplication
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
To: Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion <
vm-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
2009/3/3 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
> 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?
I think an easier way would be to add:
so you can use:
a <<+ b
a >>+ b
without writing horrible cCode:
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vm-dev