[Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...

[Andreas Raab]

Eliot Miranda wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de 
> <mailto:andreas.raab at gmx.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Don't even think about it.
> 
> 
> Too late.  I'm testing my workaround,  Give us a reason or two and I 
> might recant :)

You are creating more instability and risk. We want to ship this thing 
in a couple of weeks. Introducing subtle bugs like these are most 
definitely not the path to stabilizing this VM.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

>  
> 
>     Cheers,
>      - Andreas
> 
>     Eliot Miranda 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?
> 
>         E.
> 
>