From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2001-09-24 20:39:41
|
> * In message <20010924194431.4.RETI@RAINIER-VLM.AI.MIT.EDU> > * On the subject of "Re: [clisp-list] Problems compiling clisp 2.27 for Tru64 5.1 on Alpha using cc" > * Sent on Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:44 -0400 > * Honorable re...@ai... writes: > > Sorry, I was just trying to prevent bothering everyone with what > seemed like a one-on-one conversation. I understand. > > produce 0x44xxxxxxxx. If I change it back to 0x43xxxxxxxx, I > > get the right answer, so whatever bit 0x100000000 is (the mark > > bit?), it is erroneously getting added in twice apparently > > changing the type code. > > I was wrong. It got what appeared to be the right answer, i.e. it > printed out as -1 or -2 (the two test cases I used in the 2-bit case) > but those returned values were not EQ (or EQL or EQUAL) to a typed-in > -1 or -2. > > 0x43ffffffff prints out as -1, but 0x42ffffffff is the real -1. what do you get as type-of for 0x43ffffffff? what do you get when you replace return negfixnum(wbitm(intLsize)+(oint)wert); with return negfixnum(-wbitm(intLsize)+(oint)wert); ?? thanks for your help! -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) Support Israel's right to defend herself! <http://www.i-charity.com/go/israel> Read what the Arab leaders say to their people on <http://www.memri.org/> MS: Brain off-line, please wait. |