[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Alan Watson <a.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Arithmetic issues*From*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:22:30 -0500*Cc*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <43627DA5.1000708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <y9lzmp775oz.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051018173639.GC13524@NYCMJCOWA2> <43626CE4.4060703@xxxxxxxxxxx> <43627DA5.1000708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Oct 28, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Alan Watson wrote:

* Should a minimum precision be required for fixnums or flonums?In an implementation written in C (i.e., without access to thecarry flag) running on a 32-bit processor, it might make sense touse 16-bit fixnums to make it easy to check for overflow and theneed for bignums.

http://www.hackersdelight.org/

Of course, in a sense, you have access to the carry flag because"long long" is at least 64-bits.

Brad

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Arithmetic issues***From:*Alan Watson

**References**:**Arithmetic issues***From:*Michael Sperber

**Re: Arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: Arithmetic issues***From:*Per Bothner

**Re: Arithmetic issues***From:*Alan Watson

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Arithmetic issues** - Next by Date:
**Re: Arithmetic issues** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Arithmetic issues** - Next by thread:
**Re: Arithmetic issues** - Index(es):