[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Prevent Chicken from truncating large flon
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Prevent Chicken from truncating large flonums when compiling
Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:15:29 +0200
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 05:56:52PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Hi all,
> This is a patch and bugreport rolled into one ;)
> While testing the "numbers" egg I found out that programs
> containing flonum literals can behave differently when compiled
> or interpreted.
I forgot, but here's a simple test you can use to more easily see
this in action:
;; Use -O0 to compile, else the comparison gets completely optimized away ;)
(print "equal when read? " (= 1237940039285380274899124224
(print "equal when read and converted? " (= 1237940039285380274899124224
This code can also be run through the interpreter and you can see
it works fine there (prints "#t" for both cases).
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth