On Nov 4, 2005, at 1:26, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/3/05, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shifting anything by = the bits of the int isn't portable nor
specified.
Why isn't it specified? It seems to me that it should be zero.
C standard (actually from a draft of C99)
If the
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each compiler for parrot would have to add in code to find
out the size of
On Nov 4, 2005, at 18:24, Joshua Isom wrote:
[ please top-post ]
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each
Joshua Isom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why should the result be an unportable/undocumented parrot op? If
parrot's aiming for portability, so long as external libraries aren't
used, shouldn't parrot treat code the same way for all platforms?
Otherwise, each compiler for parrot would have to
I was trying to use bit shifting for division by multiples of two, but
if the shift amount is a multiple of the int size, it seems to fail to
shift the bits. Here's some example code demonstrating it.
.sub _main @MAIN
.local int a, b, c
print a\tb\tc\n
a = 24
b = 32
c = a
On Nov 3, 2005, at 20:49, Joshua Isom wrote:
I was trying to use bit shifting for division by multiples of two, but
if the shift amount is a multiple of the int size, it seems to fail to
shift the bits. Here's some example code demonstrating it.
.sub _main @MAIN
.local int a, b, c
On 11/3/05, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 3, 2005, at 20:49, Joshua Isom wrote:
I was trying to use bit shifting for division by multiples of two, but
if the shift amount is a multiple of the int size, it seems to fail to
shift the bits. Here's some example code
