forgive the duplication. I sent to the wrong list first time around.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Eliot Miranda</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM<br>Subject: urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...<br>To: Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion <<a href="mailto:vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org">vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a>><br>
<br><br>Hi All,<div><br></div><div> 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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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?</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>E.</div>
</font></div><br>