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

[Jens Vollinga]

Dear Chris,

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'd like to release 1.3.5 soon (today, tomorrow?). Apart from an NEWS 
update (expand_dummy_sum fix missing) and a possible inclusion of 
Pierangelo's patch (objections?) are there any pending issues?

Regards,
Jens