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

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Mar 3 22:09:13 UTC 2009


Oops. This was *not* meant to go to the list. My sincerest apologies.

   - Andreas

Andreas Raab wrote:
> 
> 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