[squeak-dev] Questionable comment
cunningham.cb at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 23:16:52 UTC 2015
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> Hi Chris,
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> well, not questionable - bad.
>> (in ByteArray)
>> long64At: index
>> "Answer a 64-bit integer in Smalltalk order (little-endian)."
>> | n1 n2 |
>> n1 := self unsignedLongAt: index bigEndian: true.
>> n2 := self unsignedLongAt: index+4 bigEndian: true.
>> These are obviously bigEndian now, nto litte-endian.
>> Does this mean Smalltalk order (or now Squeak order) has changed?
> This is not for general purpose. The method is part of VMMaker. Let's
> take it to vm-dev.
> It's a simple mistake. If you look at long64At:put: you'll see the
> comment is correct:
Yes. I had loaded the VMMaker to look at the ARM jit code (I'm working on
an ARM simulator - fun project), and then forgot I had it loaded. then
later, I needed to pull 64-bit integers out of a structure (while writing a
KAFKA interface) and stumbled on this. I think a generalized 64 bit
put/access would be useful, and maybe even a general 128 bit too (although
I have no need for it at this time).
> long64At: index put: val
> "I store 64-bit integers in Smalltalk (little-endian) order."
> self unsignedLongAt: index put: (val bitAnd: 16rFFFFFFFF) bigEndian: false.
> self unsignedLongAt: index+4 put: (val bitShift: -32) bigEndian: false.
> I'm now confused. Not only is the comment wrong, but it looks like the
code is wrong. The get (#long64At:) is actually getting the 64-bit integer
in big-endian order (as witnessed by the two sub-calls, too), while the put
it truly doing it in little-endian format.
Or am I missing something?
> Thanks for finding this!
> best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev