Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2008-03-17 Thread Stephen Weeks
Not long ago, Allison Randal via RT proclaimed... On Mon Feb 20 16:23:46 2006, jhoblitt !-- x -- at hawaii.edu wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: On Feb 20, 2006, at 23:44, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote: What happened to the factorial PASM

[perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2007-06-16 Thread Allison Randal via RT
On Mon Feb 20 16:23:46 2006, jhoblitt !-- x -- at hawaii.edu wrote: On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: On Feb 20, 2006, at 23:44, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote: What happened to the factorial PASM example? It seems to have disappeared and it hasn't

[perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2006-02-20 Thread Joshua Hoblitt via RT
What happened to the factorial PASM example? It seems to have disappeared and it hasn't re-appeared as a PIR example either. -J --

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2006-02-20 Thread Leopold Toetsch
On Feb 20, 2006, at 23:44, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote: What happened to the factorial PASM example? It seems to have disappeared and it hasn't re-appeared as a PIR example either. It used bogus high numbers beyond int32 range and was just broken. leo

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2006-02-20 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote: On Feb 20, 2006, at 23:44, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote: What happened to the factorial PASM example? It seems to have disappeared and it hasn't re-appeared as a PIR example either. It used bogus high numbers beyond int32

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-13 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:24:47PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: I have added information on how to provide patches to http://www.parrotcode.org to docs/submissions.pod. Basically you create patches against https://*svn*.perl.org/perl.org/docs/live/*parrotcode*/

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-12 Thread Bernhard Schmalhofer
Joshua Hoblitt schrieb: I'd like to propose that we fix the n! values listed on the examples page, change the code example to the snippet below, and add a warning about BigInt's requiring that GMP is installed. Hi, I have added information on how to provide patches to

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-11 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:43:35PM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote: I have checked the factorial example on http://www.parrotcode.org/examples/pasm.html. Starting with 13! incorrect results are indeed returned on my 32bit Linux machine. I'm not surprised, the values listed on that

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-11 Thread Bernhard Schmalhofer
Joshua Hoblitt schrieb: I'm not surprised, the values listed on that webpage for !13, !14 and !15 are wrong. According to my lisp interpreter the correct values (Google confirmed) are: 13! = 6227020800 14! = 87178291200 15! = 1307674368000 Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-11 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed returns the incorrect values that are mentioned in the webpage. I happen to get the correct answers out to 20! but only because I'm on 64bit hardware. The real issue is that the C

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-11 Thread Joshua Hoblitt
-J -- On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote: Well, the problem is that Parrot indeed returns the incorrect values that are mentioned in the webpage. I'd like to propose that we fix the n! values listed on the examples page, change the code example to the

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-09 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Di 19. Okt 2004, 19:49:44]: Is it the intended operation of the 'factorial' program on the Parrot examples page to truncate the results? Looks like a bug to me... I have checked the factorial example on

Re: [perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-09 Thread Will Coleda
Switching to Integer doesn't help unless you have a bigint lib, at least on my box: The first 15 factorials are: 1 2 6 24 120 720 5040 40320 362880 3628800 39916800 479001600 no bigint lib loaded current instr.: '(null)' pc 16 ((unknown file):-1) To address the other point, I'll reorganize

[perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

2005-09-08 Thread Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Di 19. Okt 2004, 19:49:44]: Is it the intended operation of the 'factorial' program on the Parrot examples page to truncate the results? Looks like a bug to me... I have checked the factorial example on http://www.parrotcode.org/examples/pasm.html. Starting with 13!