[Vm-dev] urgent info required on Slang's shift treatment...
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Mar 3 21:20:11 UTC 2009
Don't even think about it.
Cheers,
- Andreas
Eliot Miranda 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.
More information about the Vm-dev
mailing list