1. and_bits() behavior
Should this be right?
ADMIN_ONLY = 128
btype = -1
?and_bits(ADMIN_ONLY,btype)
It's returning 128!
2. Re: and_bits() behavior
c.k.lester wrote:
> Should this be right?
>
> ADMIN_ONLY = 128
> btype = -1
>
> ?and_bits(ADMIN_ONLY,btype)
>
> It's returning 128!
That's OK.
Run the following code, and maybe then you can solve the riddle yourself. 
include machine.e
? int_to_bits(-1, 8)
Regards,
Juergen
3. Re: and_bits() behavior
c.k.lester wrote:
>
> Should this be right?
>
> ADMIN_ONLY = 128
> btype = -1
>
> ?and_bits(ADMIN_ONLY,btype)
>
> It's returning 128!
Hi c.k.
Run this...
integer i1
i1=-1
printf(1,"%x\n",i1)
printf(1,"%d\n",and_bits(i1,128))
while get_key()=-1 do end while
--Quark
4. Re: and_bits() behavior
Thanks, Juergen and Quark. :)
My only response is, "BoooOooOoOOOOOo."
So I gotta test for -1. waaaAAAAaahhhh.
5. Re: and_bits() behavior
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> c.k.lester wrote:
>
> > Should this be right?
> >
> > ADMIN_ONLY = 128
> > btype = -1
> >
> > ?and_bits(ADMIN_ONLY,btype)
> >
> > It's returning 128!
>
> That's OK.
> Run the following code, and maybe then you can solve the riddle yourself.
> }}}
<eucode>
> include machine.e
> ? int_to_bits(-1, 8)
> </eucode>
{{{
> Regards,
> Juergen
BTW, I experimented with this today. The highest bit count that I could go to
and still get all ones was 53. At 54 and above, I got all zeroes.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.
6. Re: and_bits() behavior
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com>
Jun 27, 2007
-
Last edited Jun 28, 2007
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >
> > That's OK.
> > Run the following code, and maybe then you can solve the riddle yourself.
> >
> > }}}
<eucode>
> > include machine.e
> > ? int_to_bits(-1, 8)
> > </eucode>
{{{
>
> BTW, I experimented with this today. The highest bit count that I could go to
> and still get all ones was 53. At 54 and above, I got all zeroes.
I believe that you've hit the precision limit of a double, which is probably
the reason for this.
Matt
