Re: [Chicken-hackers] numbers stuff

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 03:16:26PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:49:09PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> >
> > I just pushed this, along with some tests, which exposed a few more bugs
> > which I also fixed:  I had forgotten to update the size calculations for
> > bignums after switching the representation to the new style where
> > bignums are strings wrapped inside records.  Also, the handling of
> > foreign return values of type int64 was incorrect on 32 bits.
> 
> Thanks. This seems to work now, at least for the simple tests I did.

Thanks for double-checking!

> > If you agree, I can add [FFI integer argument] range checking and
> > uncomment some of the tests that I added.  I'm unsure about the
> > CHICKEN 4 branch; do we want to add this extra checking there as well?
> 
> Quite right. If you could add these checks, that would be nice. And
> I would leave CHICKEN 4 as it is. Nobody complained yet, so far.

I've added these checks now.  I was a little unsure whether the "byte"
type should get range checking, so I didn't add it for now.  The
shortened "[unsigned]-int[32]" did not get any range checking added,
because the manual (somewhat) clearly states that they are for performance
and will not support the full range anyway.

> Otherwise I'm fine with merging, so if anybody has any objections,
> he or she should speak up now.

Your mail wasn't CC'ed to the mailing list, so this mail will serve as
the final opportunity for people to voice any objections against adding
full numeric tower support.  If nobody objects, I will merge it somewhere
during the weekend.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature