Don wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from ZHOU Zhenyu (rin...@goozo.net)'s article
BigInt b = "100000";
foreach( i; 1..20 ){
    b*=10;
    writeln(b*b);
}
system: Windows
CPU: Intel Core2 Duo T7250 2.00GHz
result:
1000000000000
100000000000000
10000000000000000
1000000000000000000
100000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000
999981553255926290448384
100000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000
1000000000000000000000000000000
100000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000
1000000000000000000000000000000000000
100000000000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000
999999999999999999999981553255926290448384
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
9999999999999999999999999981553255926290448384
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


Yep, I can reproduce that on Windows on an Athlon 64 X2. You're _not_ just going
crazy.  Please file a Bugzila.

I don't think that will ever get fixed (unless you make a patch yourself). Phobos BigInt was created by Janice, and she seems to have completely disappeared. I'm working on Tango BigInt, which is completely independent, and will replace Phobos BigInt eventually. ( == as soon as we get a common namespace to put it into). I don't think anyone is interested in debugging Phobos BigInt.

I'd fix it but I know your BigInt is bound to work much better overall. Speaking of the common namespace name, it seems that problem won't go away soon. I kindly ask you to not make the inclusion of BigInt in Phobos hinge on that.

Andrei

Reply via email to