[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Do not assume all fixnum literals will be fixnums at runtime [was: Re: [PATCH] types.db entries for the overflow-aware ops]
Thu, 25 May 2017 09:42:23 +1200
On 2017-05-24 13:16, Peter Bex wrote:
> Both should use small-bignum?, and of course that means the bignum?
> check should be restored.
Cool, I've applied this with that change.
Description: PGP signature