Philippe Martin wrote: > John Machin wrote: > > > So why don't you get a freely available "bignum" package, throw away > > the bits you don' t want, and just compile it and use it, instead of > > writing your own bug-ridden (see below) routines? Oh yeah, the bignum > > package might use "long" and you think that you don't have access to > > 32-bit longs in the C compiler for the 8-bit device that you mistook > > for an arm but then said is an Smc8831 [Google can't find it] with a > > CPU that you think is a SC88 [but the manual whose URL you gave is for > > an S1C88] ... > > > > Thanks for the fixes - still looking at it. > > You are correct, all "bignum" packages I found needed 32 bits. > > Yes I still see from my documentation that there is no "long" handled by my > compiler.
Have you actually tried it? Do you mean it barfs on the word "long" [meaning that it's not an ANSI-compliant C compiler], or that "long" is only 16 bits? > > I did make a mistake on the CPU (and I really do not care what it is) - you > wanted some ref (I still do not see why) because (1) [like I said before] gcc appears to be able to generate code for a vast number of different CPUs (2) because I find it very difficult to believe that a C compiler for the CPU on a device in current use won't support 32-bit longs -- and so far you have presented no credible evidence to the contrary > and I googled S1C88 and sent you a > link as that is the name of the compiler's directory. and is that or is it not the correct link for the documentation for the compiler that you are using?????? > > The reason I first came here was to not have to write my "... own > bug-ridden ..." (how nice) ... I have plenty of other bugs to write first. > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
