Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [Trent Mick]
> > >>> i = -2147483648
> > OverflowError: integer literal too large
> > >>> i = -2147483648L
> > >>> int(i) # it *is* a valid integer literal
> > -2147483648
>
> Python's grammar is such that negative integer literals don't exist; what
> you actually have there is the unary minus operator applied to positive
> integer literals; indeed,
<disassembly snipped>
Well, knowing that there are more negatives than positives
and then coding it this way appears in fact as a design flaw to me.
A simple solution could be to do the opposite:
Always store a negative number and negate it
for positive numbers. A real negative number
would then end up with two UNARY_NEGATIVE
opcodes in sequence. If we had a simple postprocessor
to remove such sequences at the end, we're done.
As another step, it could also adjust all such consts
and remove those opcodes.
This could be a task for Skip's peephole optimizer.
Why did it never go into the core?
ciao - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@appliedbiometrics.com>
Applied Biometrics GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4