GNU bug report logs - #14879
fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum disagree

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#14879: closed (fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum
 disagree)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:43:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:41:41 -0400
with message-id <87li5618tm.fsf <at> tines.lan>
and subject line Re: bug#14879: fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum disagree
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #14879,
regarding fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum disagree
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
14879: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=14879
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Göran Weinholt <goran <at> weinholt.se>
To: bug-guile <at> gnu.org
Subject: fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum disagree
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:02:55 +0200

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello schemers,

scheme@(guile-user)> (import (rnrs))
scheme@(guile-user)> (fixnum-width)
$1 = 61
scheme@(guile-user)> (greatest-fixnum)
$2 = 2305843009213693951
scheme@(guile-user)> (least-fixnum)
$3 = -2305843009213693952

If the reported fixnum width is correct, then these should be the least
and greatest fixnums:

  (- (expt 2 (- (fixnum-width) 1)))   => -1152921504606846976
  (- (expt 2 (- (fixnum-width) 1)) 1) => 1152921504606846975

If the reported least and greatest fixnums are correct, then the fixnum
width is actually 62.

Tested with 2.0.9.33-3bbca-dirty on an amd64 system.

Regards,

-- 
Göran Weinholt <goran <at> weinholt.se>
20             JUSTICE KENNEDY:  That seems odd.  I mean,
21 Microsoft doesn't say please buy our disk because it's
22 the prettiest disk in the business.

[Message part 4 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: Göran Weinholt <goran <at> weinholt.se>
Cc: 14879-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14879: fixnum-width, greatest-fixnum and least-fixnum disagree
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:41:41 -0400

Göran Weinholt <goran <at> weinholt.se> writes:

> scheme@(guile-user)> (import (rnrs))
> scheme@(guile-user)> (fixnum-width)
> $1 = 61
> scheme@(guile-user)> (greatest-fixnum)
> $2 = 2305843009213693951
> scheme@(guile-user)> (least-fixnum)
> $3 = -2305843009213693952
>
> If the reported fixnum width is correct, then these should be the least
> and greatest fixnums:
>
>   (- (expt 2 (- (fixnum-width) 1)))   => -1152921504606846976
>   (- (expt 2 (- (fixnum-width) 1)) 1) => 1152921504606846975
>
> If the reported least and greatest fixnums are correct, then the fixnum
> width is actually 62.

That's correct.  Fixed in 06903786211afd9a554b8f009a37111f729607ee.

    Thanks!
      Mark

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.