At 03:56 PM 9/18/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
>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.
Integer and float ops, *on integer and float registers* do undefined things
on over/underflow. No guarantees, no promises, no certainty. Price of speed.
What they do with PMCs, though, is another matter. Those will convert or
throw interpreter exceptions, as appropriate.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
