Hi all,
Ruby 1.8.4
Solaris 10
Is this correct?
# 32 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]
# 64 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [4294967295]
Regards,
Dan
yes. 'l' is unsigned. i think you may want 'i'.
regards.
-a
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Daniel Berger wrote:
Hi all,
Ruby 1.8.4
Solaris 10Is this correct?
# 32 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]# 64 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [4294967295]Regards,
Dan
--
judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
btw. this is useful for me
irb(main):008:0> to_bin = lambda{|s| '[ ' << s.unpack('c*').map{|b| '%8.8b' % b}.join(' ') << ' ]'}
=> #<Proc:0xb7569f90@(irb):8>
irb(main):009:0> to_bin[ [-1].pack("l") ]
=> "[ 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 ]"
irb(main):010:0> to_bin[ [-1].pack("i") ]
=> "[ 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 ]"
irb(main):011:0> to_bin[ [1].pack("l") ]
=> "[ 00000001 00000000 00000000 00000000 ]"
irb(main):012:0> to_bin[ [1].pack("i") ]
=> "[ 00000001 00000000 00000000 00000000 ]"
-a
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Daniel Berger wrote:
Hi all,
Ruby 1.8.4
Solaris 10Is this correct?
# 32 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]# 64 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [4294967295]Regards,
Dan
--
judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
cat a.rb
Hi,
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:50:34 +0900, Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:
Ruby 1.8.4
Solaris 10Is this correct?
# 32 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]# 64 bit
irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [4294967295]
Hmm, unpack("l") should have returned negative value unless "_" suffix
is supplied.
matz.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-talk-ctl@ruby-lang.org?body=unsubscribe>
Hi,
>Ruby 1.8.4
>Solaris 10
>
>Is this correct?
>
># 32 bit
>irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
>=> "\377\377\377\377"
>irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
>=> [-1]
>
># 64 bit
>irb(main):002:0> [-1].pack("l")
>=> "\377\377\377\377"
>irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
>=> [4294967295]Hmm, unpack("l") should have returned negative value unless "_" suffix
is supplied.matz.
Here's some more info that may or may not be useful:
# 64 bit
irb(main):004:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_")
=> [nil]
irb(main):005:0> [-1].pack("l_")
=> "\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):006:0> "\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_")
=> [-1]
Regards,
Dan
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" > on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:50:34 +0900, Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:
Hi,
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:35:53 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [4294967295]Hmm, unpack("l") should have returned negative value unless "_" suffix
is supplied.
This means EXTEND32() macro in pack.c is not working on 64bit Solaris
(and perhaps on other 64bit systems neither). I have no 64bit machine
at hand. Could somebody confirm?
matz.
Hello.
This means EXTEND32() macro in pack.c is not working on 64bit Solaris
(and perhaps on other 64bit systems neither). I have no 64bit machine
at hand. Could somebody confirm?
Me neigher. But we can use HP TestDrive 
Probably this patch will solve the problem.
Index: pack.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /src/ruby/pack.c,v
retrieving revision 1.62.2.12
diff -u -w -b -p -r1.62.2.12 pack.c
--- pack.c 13 Oct 2005 14:30:49 -0000 1.62.2.12
+++ pack.c 16 Feb 2006 06:01:07 -0000
@@ -347,11 +347,11 @@ num2i32(x)
return 0; /* not reached */
}
-#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32 || SIZEOF_INT == SIZE32
+#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32
# define EXTEND32(x)
#else
/* invariant in modulo 1<<31 */
-# define EXTEND32(x) do {if (!natint) {(x) = (I32)(((1<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0<<31));}} while(0)
+# define EXTEND32(x) do { if (!natint) {(x) = (((1L<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0L<<31));}} while(0)
#endif
#if SIZEOF_SHORT == SIZE16
# define EXTEND16(x)
Hi,
This means EXTEND32() macro in pack.c is not working on 64bit Solaris
(and perhaps on other 64bit systems neither). I have no 64bit machine
at hand. Could somebody confirm?Me neigher. But we can use HP TestDrive
Probably this patch will solve the problem.
Daniel, could you try this patch on your 64bit box?
matz.
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:45:50 +0900, H.Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
--- pack.c 13 Oct 2005 14:30:49 -0000 1.62.2.12
+++ pack.c 16 Feb 2006 06:01:07 -0000
@@ -347,11 +347,11 @@ num2i32(x)
return 0; /* not reached */
}-#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32 || SIZEOF_INT == SIZE32
+#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32
# define EXTEND32(x)
#else
/* invariant in modulo 1<<31 */
-# define EXTEND32(x) do {if (!natint) {(x) = (I32)(((1<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0<<31));}} while(0)
+# define EXTEND32(x) do { if (!natint) {(x) = (((1L<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0L<<31));}} while(0)
#endif
#if SIZEOF_SHORT == SIZE16
# define EXTEND16(x)
Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:
Hi,
>
>>This means EXTEND32() macro in pack.c is not working on 64bit Solaris
>>(and perhaps on other 64bit systems neither). I have no 64bit machine
>>at hand. Could somebody confirm?
>
>Me neigher. But we can use HP TestDrive
>
>Probably this patch will solve the problem.Daniel, could you try this patch on your 64bit box?
The pach works for me on my opteron 64 box. Here is another.
The sun studio cc, warned
"../pack.c", line 1954: warning: integer overflow detected: op "<<"
"../pack.c", line 1954: warning: initializer does not fit or is out of range: -144115188075855872
Is the patch correct?
index: pack.c
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" > on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:45:50 +0900, H.Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
RCS file: /src/ruby/pack.c,v
retrieving revision 1.62.2.12
@@ -1951,7 +1951,7 @@ pack_unpack(str, fmt)
case 'w':
{
unsigned long ul = 0;
- unsigned long ulmask = 0xfeL << ((sizeof(unsigned long) - 1) * 8);
+ unsigned long ulmask = 0xfeUL << ((sizeof(unsigned long) - 1UL) * 8UL);
while (len > 0 && s < send) {
ul <<= 7;
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
>
>>This means EXTEND32() macro in pack.c is not working on 64bit Solaris
>>(and perhaps on other 64bit systems neither). I have no 64bit machine
>>at hand. Could somebody confirm?
>
>Me neigher. But we can use HP TestDrive
>
>Probably this patch will solve the problem.Daniel, could you try this patch on your 64bit box?
matz.
>--- pack.c 13 Oct 2005 14:30:49 -0000 1.62.2.12
>+++ pack.c 16 Feb 2006 06:01:07 -0000
>@@ -347,11 +347,11 @@ num2i32(x)
> return 0; /* not reached */
> }
> >-#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32 || SIZEOF_INT == SIZE32
>+#if SIZEOF_LONG == SIZE32
> # define EXTEND32(x) > #else
> /* invariant in modulo 1<<31 */
>-# define EXTEND32(x) do {if (!natint) {(x) = (I32)(((1<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0<<31));}} while(0)
>+# define EXTEND32(x) do { if (!natint) {(x) = (((1L<<31)-1-(x))^~(~0L<<31));}} while(0)
> #endif
> #if SIZEOF_SHORT == SIZE16
> # define EXTEND16(x)
Looks good. The only one I found odd was the [nil] returned by "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_"). Is that expected? The 32 bit version returns [-1].
# 64 bit Ruby
irb(main):001:0> [-1].pack("l")
=> "\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):002:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]
irb(main):003:0> "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_")
=> [nil]
irb(main):004:0> [-1].pack("l_")
=> "\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377"
irb(main):005:0> "\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377".unpack("l")
=> [-1]
irb(main):006:0> "\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_")
=> [-1]
Thanks,
Dan
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" > on Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:45:50 +0900, H.Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
Hi,
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:47:36 +0900, Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> writes:
Daniel, could you try this patch on your 64bit box?
Looks good. The only one I found odd was the [nil] returned by
"\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_"). Is that expected? The 32 bit version returns
[-1].
No, it should return [4294967295]. How about a patch from Ville
Mattila in [ruby-talk:180126]?
matz.
Hello.
Looks good. The only one I found odd was the [nil] returned by
"\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_"). Is that expected? The 32 bit version returns
[-1].No, it should return [4294967295]. How about a patch from Ville
Mattila in [ruby-talk:180126]?
Are these also unexpected?
irb(main):009:0> [123].pack("s").unpack("l")
=> [nil]
irb(main):010:0> [123].pack("s").unpack("q")
=> [nil]
irb(main):011:0> [123].pack("l").unpack("q")
=> [nil]
Hi,
In message "Re: pack("l"), 64 bit question" on Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:46:25 +0900, H.Yamamoto <ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp> writes:
Are these also unexpected?
irb(main):009:0> [123].pack("s").unpack("l")
=> [nil]
irb(main):010:0> [123].pack("s").unpack("q")
=> [nil]
irb(main):011:0> [123].pack("l").unpack("q")
=> [nil]
Wait, ... I see. "\377\377\377\377".unpack("l_") gives you nil
because it's shorter than sizeof(long) on the platform. So they are
all OK. Thank you.
Ocean, could you commit your patch?
matz.