On 12/20/2019 6:59 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Fri, 20 Dec 2019 23:39:30 +0300, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
> > The Racket-imposed limit should be 64 bits (more than enough) on all
> > platforms. I can try to replicate the problem later today, but more
> > information on the error message would be hel
At Fri, 20 Dec 2019 23:39:30 +0300, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
> > The Racket-imposed limit should be 64 bits (more than enough) on all
> > platforms. I can try to replicate the problem later today, but more
> > information on the error message would be helpful.
>
> I do not have access to that Windows 7
On 12/20/2019 2:49 PM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
I would have understood maximum the limit of maximum signed integer
2^31 = 2 GB (and my program would be fine with 2 GB limit).
meant to be "I would have understood the limit of maximum signed
integer ..."
The fixnum tag is just 1 bit, but you ar
The Racket-imposed limit should be 64 bits (more than enough) on all
platforms. I can try to replicate the problem later today, but more
information on the error message would be helpful.
I do not have access to that Windows 7 machine until Monday.
I managed to reproduce the problem, though,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:05 PM Shu-Hung You
wrote:
>
> Could it be that the Racket layer importing rktio C code directly uses
> get-ffi-obj and does not convert scheme_bignum_type to _int64?
>
Never mind this -- I got the FFI part wrong.
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:01 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
Could it be that the Racket layer importing rktio C code directly uses
get-ffi-obj and does not convert scheme_bignum_type to _int64?
@Dmitry: I guess Racket uses 1 bit for type tagging, leaving only
30+sign (or 62+sign) bits for the actual value.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 2:01 PM Matthew Flatt wr
The Racket-imposed limit should be 64 bits (more than enough) on all
platforms. I can try to replicate the problem later today, but more
information on the error message would be helpful.
At Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:39:37 +0300, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On a fresh 32-bit Racket 7.5 install on
I would have understood maximum the limit of maximum signed integer
2^31 = 2 GB (and my program would be fine with 2 GB limit).
meant to be "I would have understood the limit of maximum signed integer
..."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
On a fresh 32-bit Racket 7.5 install on 32-bit Windows 7,
(file-position port number) does not work when number
is more that 1 GB.
On 32-bit machines, the largest fixnum is 2^30 which is 1GB. I
suspect that /file-position/ really wants a fixnum rather than a
non-negative-integer as is d
On 12/20/2019 8:45 AM, Marc Kaufmann wrote:
reading a past thread started by me, I realize that I should have
learned how to implement Philip's advice on using stateless
continuations, but well I didn't. So I still use vanilla
`send/suspend/dispatch` and hence my users hit the "Sorry, this pa
On 12/20/2019 9:39 AM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote:
On a fresh 32-bit Racket 7.5 install on 32-bit Windows 7,
(file-position port number) does not work when number
is more that 1 GB.
On 32-bit machines, the largest fixnum is 2^30 which is 1GB. I suspect
that /file-position/ really wants a fixnum
Hello,
On a fresh 32-bit Racket 7.5 install on 32-bit Windows 7,
(file-position port number) does not work when number
is more that 1 GB.
I can not now say exactly what the error message was,
because I am away from that system, but IIUC it
was something about the position being "too large".
The
Hello,
Please, find below the third call for draft papers for TFPIE 2020.
Please forward these to anyone you think may be interested.
Apologies for any duplicates you may receive.
best regards,
Jurriaan Hage
Chair of TFPIE 2020
Hi all,
reading a past thread started by me, I realize that I should have learned
how to implement Philip's advice on using stateless continuations, but well
I didn't. So I still use vanilla `send/suspend/dispatch` and hence my users
hit the "Sorry, this page has expired. Please go back." The q
14 matches
Mail list logo
