Re: bignum branch

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Robert Pluim <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:10:39 +0200
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> The interpreter is fine. ccl.el assumes that 'ash' will truncate its
> result, which is no longer true when using bignums. Truncating all ash
> operations to 28 bits in ccl.el fixes this particular error for me,
> but the resulting CCL programs are not identical:

Why is it important that the CCL programs be identical?

Or maybe we should have a variant of 'ash' that does truncate, since
other callers might expect the same?