[Vm-dev] Re: urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:36:18 UTC 2009

Come on original Slang developers.  'Fess up.  I need to know what your
thought process was in making shifts unsigned so that I can change it
without too much hard work.  Pretty please.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20090303/a6eb7cea/attachment.htm

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list