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

[Eliot Miranda]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

>
> Don't even think about it.


Too late.  I'm testing my workaround,  Give us a reason or two and I might
recant :)


> 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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20090303/82255e42/attachment.htm