forgive the duplication. I sent to the wrong list first time around.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Subject: urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
To: Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion <
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
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.