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

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 20:54:30 UTC 2009

forgive the duplication.  I sent to the wrong list first time around.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at 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 at 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?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20090303/5df503e5/attachment.htm

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list