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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*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):