[Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
siguctua at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:09:33 UTC 2009
2009/3/3 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
> 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?
I think an easier way would be to add:
so you can use:
a <<+ b
a >>+ b
without writing horrible cCode:
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Vm-dev