Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Int overflow in literals
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Int overflow in literals
On 3 Nov 2003, skaller wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 08:14, Oleg Trott wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 October 2003 03:05 pm, Issac Trotts wrote:
> > 
> > Or, better yet, use Big_int:
> Felix does that, and i'm very happy with the idea.
> Constant folding is done in "infinite" precision.
> The check for size, if done, would occur in the backend
> code generator .. not the parser.

This is a bad idea.  I'd like the constant folding to be done in the word 
length that the code will be executed in- this way, there is no difference 
between code that is executed at run time and code that is executed at 
compile time.

Now, being able to have bignum constants...


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: