On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 05:56:52PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a patch and bugreport rolled into one ;) > > While testing the "numbers" egg I found out that programs > containing flonum literals can behave differently when compiled > or interpreted.
I forgot, but here's a simple test you can use to more easily see this in action: ---------- ;; Use -O0 to compile, else the comparison gets completely optimized away ;) (print "equal when read? " (= 1237940039285380274899124224 1237940039285380274899124224)) (print "equal when read and converted? " (= 1237940039285380274899124224 (string->number "1237940039285380274899124224"))) ---------- This code can also be run through the interpreter and you can see it works fine there (prints "#t" for both cases). 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