Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Bugfix for #791 and unpack flonums correctly for integer?

2012-03-11 Thread Moritz Heidkamp 
Christian Kellermann  writes:
> Since I also agree and I *wrote* *this* *patch* we are deadlocked.
> Attention! Robots need your help!

I had a look at it but am too clueless about that numbers business to
give a confident review, alas. Any other takers?

___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Bugfix for #791 and unpack flonums correctly for integer?

2012-03-11 Thread Christian Kellermann 
* Peter Bex  [120304 17:11]:
> Since I wrote the original patch, I didn't want to push it,
> so someone else can have the opportunity to look at it.

Since I also agree and I *wrote* *this* *patch* we are deadlocked.
Attention! Robots need your help!

Christian

-- 
Who can (make) the muddy water (clear)? Let it be still, and it will
gradually become clear. Who can secure the condition of rest? Let
movement go on, and the condition of rest will gradually arise.
 -- Lao Tse. 

___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Bugfix for #791 and unpack flonums correctly for integer?

2012-03-04 Thread Peter Bex 
On Sun, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:52:18AM +0100, Christian Kellermann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> attached is a patch that Peter came up with which I think is ok. I
> have added some (preliminary) test cases for the integer? and
> rational? predicate. number? should be added too one time.
> 
> As it still is 64bit-less sunday, I cannot test this on 64bit. "It
> should work"...at least it does not break anything on 32bit systems :)

I've tested it on a 64-bits machine and all tests pass.

Since I wrote the original patch, I didn't want to push it,
so someone else can have the opportunity to look at it.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth

___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Bugfix for #791 and unpack flonums correctly for integer?

2012-03-04 Thread Christian Kellermann 
Hi,

attached is a patch that Peter came up with which I think is ok. I
have added some (preliminary) test cases for the integer? and
rational? predicate. number? should be added too one time.

As it still is 64bit-less sunday, I cannot test this on 64bit. "It
should work"...at least it does not break anything on 32bit systems :)

Kind regards,

Christian

-- 
Who can (make) the muddy water (clear)? Let it be still, and it will
gradually become clear. Who can secure the condition of rest? Let
movement go on, and the condition of rest will gradually arise.
 -- Lao Tse. 
>From 755d57fd1d3505154f4609b2bfbc0eeab371ccd0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Kellermann 
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 11:42:58 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix bug #791 and unpack flonums correctly for integer?

The patch originally comes from Peter, I have added the tests for
it. Maybe there should be more.
---
 chicken.h   |   14 +-
 tests/library-tests.scm |   12 
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/chicken.h b/chicken.h
index b304d22..b5d83b1 100644
--- a/chicken.h
+++ b/chicken.h
@@ -2198,13 +2198,17 @@ C_inline int C_ub_i_fpintegerp(double x)
 
 C_inline C_word C_i_integerp(C_word x)
 {
-  double dummy;
+  double dummy, val;
+
+  if (x & C_FIXNUM_BIT)
+ return C_SCHEME_TRUE;
+  if (C_immediatep(x) || C_block_header(x) != C_FLONUM_TAG)
+ return C_SCHEME_FALSE;
 
-  if(C_isnan(x) || C_isinf(x)) return C_SCHEME_FALSE;
+  val = C_flonum_magnitude(x);
+  if(C_isnan(val) || C_isinf(val)) return C_SCHEME_FALSE;
 
-  return C_mk_bool((x & C_FIXNUM_BIT) || 
-  ((!C_immediatep(x) && C_block_header(x) == C_FLONUM_TAG) &&
-   C_modf(C_flonum_magnitude(x), &dummy) == 0.0 ) );
+  return C_mk_bool(C_modf(val, &dummy) == 0.0);
 }
 
 
diff --git a/tests/library-tests.scm b/tests/library-tests.scm
index 573348d..c8d5304 100644
--- a/tests/library-tests.scm
+++ b/tests/library-tests.scm
@@ -18,7 +18,19 @@
 (assert (rational? 1))
 (assert (rational? 1.0))
 (assert (not (rational? +inf.)))
+(assert (not (rational? -inf.)))
+(assert (not (rational? +nan)))
 (assert (not (rational? 'foo)))
+(assert (not (rational? "foo")))
+(assert (integer? 2))
+(assert (integer? 2.0))
+(assert (not (integer? 1.1)))
+(assert (not (integer? +inf.)))
+(assert (not (integer? -inf.)))
+(assert (not (integer? +nan)))
+(assert (not (integer? 'foo)))
+(assert (not (integer? "foo")))
+; XXX number missing
 
 (define-syntax assert-fail
   (syntax-rules ()
-- 
1.7.6

___
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers