Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops]

On 2017-05-24 13:16, Peter Bex wrote: > Both should use small-bignum?, and of course that means the bignum? > check should be restored. Cool, I've applied this with that change. Evan signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Chicken-hackers

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:25:15PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Hi folks, > > Good discussion, thank you Peter and Lemon for considering this. > > > diff --git a/lfa2.scm b/lfa2.scm > > index 0fd4612..4c7ff84 100644 > > --- a/lfa2.scm > > +++ b/lfa2.scm > > @@ -173,17 +173,14 @@ > >;; a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops]

Hi folks, Good discussion, thank you Peter and Lemon for considering this. > diff --git a/lfa2.scm b/lfa2.scm > index 0fd4612..4c7ff84 100644 > --- a/lfa2.scm > +++ b/lfa2.scm > @@ -173,17 +173,14 @@ >;; a simplified variant of the one in scrutinizer.scm >(cond ((string? lit)

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH][5] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops]

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 06:25:09PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > Consider the case where you're compiling on a > 64-bit machine. The compiler folds the fixnum operations at > compile-time, resulting in a fixnum. However, if the fixnum is not > representable as a fixnum on the target computer, it