[Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Mar 3 22:01:49 UTC 2009
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.
>
>
More information about the Vm-dev
mailing list