[Vm-dev] VM Maker: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz

[Nicolas Cellier]

2016-11-01 3:10 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 2016-11-01 2:06 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Nicolas Cellier <
>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-10-31 22:42 GMT+01:00 <commits at source.squeak.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eliot Miranda uploaded a new version of VMMaker to project VM Maker:
>>>> http://source.squeak.org/VMMaker/VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972.mcz
>>>>
>>>> ==================== Summary ====================
>>>>
>>>> Name: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1972
>>>> Author: eem
>>>> Time: 31 October 2016, 2:42:12.362675 pm
>>>> UUID: 0e6a54ad-d62f-4b69-9f0d-7b66f8350984
>>>> Ancestors: VMMaker.oscog-eem.1971
>>>>
>>>> Redo fixing extB sign extension in NewsqueakV4 & SistaV1
>>>> extPushIntegerBytecode & extUnconditionalJump in interpreter and Cogit
>>>> using bitShift: 8 instead of << 8.  Slang seems to generate the correct
>>>> code with bitAShift:, but not with <<.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi Eliot,
>>> it would have worked if you would have used bitOr: instead of +
>>> I'd say bitOr: better fits the intention:
>>> you want to assemble the bits, you do not really want to perform
>>> arithmetic here.
>>>
>>
>> OK, but in 2's complement they do the same thing, so + sdeems just as
>> good for me.
>>
>>
> Not when we mix negative with positive obviously...
>

Ah, my bad, I see it now: you only change sign of first extB byte, then all
successive extB remain positive.
In this case yes, you can use + like bitOr:, you don't need my blessing
obviously :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20161103/7e2c7678/attachment.htm