<div dir="ltr">Hi Nicolas,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Nicolas Cellier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com" target="_blank">nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br><div dir="ltr"><div>From the comments in<br>- positive32BitIntegerFor: and positive64BitIntegerFor:<br>and from the names<br>- maybeInlinePositive32BitIntegerFor: and noInlineSigned32BitIntegerFor:<br><br>if I understand correctly, slang is inlining some methods carelessly of type compatibility.<br></div><div>it eliminate assignments of parameter where it should not, is that it?<br><br></div>That's not a new thing but very much what I bumped into one year ago:<br><div><div><br><a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2013-December/014371.html" target="_blank">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2013-December/014371.html</a><br><br></div><div>I had only signedness issues, but with 32 vs 64 bits it can be much worse indeed.<br><br><div>That's precisely the methods I want to play with, so before I hit some wall,<br></div></div><div>what is the status, can we generate a working 32 and/or 64 bits spur VM with 1083?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe so. But I believed that of VMMaker.oscog-eem.1079 and testing by Chris Muller shoed me the VM was buggy. So Chris is kindly testing the VM built from VMMaker.oscog-eem.1083 and if it passes I'll put the VMs on the web site. The testing should be completed this evening.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">best,<div>Eliot</div></div>
</div></div>