On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:51:43AM +0200, Mattia Barbon wrote:
> I think that especting 4294967295 == -1 because they have the same
> bit pattern ( on two's complement 32 bit machines ) is wrong
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that. :>
If anyone feels like defining a policy on what Parrot does with
out-of-range numbers, and what happens on integer overflow, I'll
submit patches to the tests to check against it. I'd rather we
didn't just modify the tests to never trigger overflow conditions,
however; that's just sweeping the issue under the rug.
- Damien
