Browse thread
[Caml-list] Int overflow in literals
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2003-11-02 (16:22) |
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... Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners