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

Not long ago, Allison Randal via RT proclaimed... > On Mon Feb 20 16:23:46 2006, jhoblitt 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

On Mon Feb 20 16:23:46 2006, jhoblitt 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 re-

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

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

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

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

[perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

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

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

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 http://www.parrotcode

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

-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 snip

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

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

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

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

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 t

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

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 the

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

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 > ht

[perl #31980] Factorial example gives incorrect result

> [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!