[GiNaC-devel] Re: [GiNaC-list] Possible size issue in test in numeric.cpp

[Richard B. Kreckel]

Jens Vollinga wrote:

> Chris Dams schrieb:
>
>> I'm not a CLN expert either, but to me it does not seem that the code is
>> incorrect. On the AMD 64 platform it is apparently always okay to apply
>> the constructor cl_I(int) no matter how large the integer argument 
>> is. If
>> the compiler is smart enough, it will automatically do what your 
>> patch is
>> doing (i.e., throw the if out of the code), so I fail to see benefits 
>> from
>> your patch.
>
>
> you are right: the code is correct and a smart compiler will do the 
> same what Pierangelo's patch does. Still, I am somewhat in favor of 
> applying this patch, because it removes an irritating warning. It is 
> not just an annoying warning. It looks as if it had some meaning to it 
> and thereby provokes patch-production or raises doubt about the code 
> quality of ginac.


I've no strong feeling one way or the other. Go, apply it, but please 
make sure you write the comparison as cl_value_len >= 32 since CLN 1.2 
will use more of those bits of a 64 bit digit on machines that support it.

What makes me wonder is why there is no such warning with the other ctor 
from unsigned.

Regards
  -richy.

-- 
Richard B. Kreckel
<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>