[Scilab-users] Bitget for int64/uint64

[Samuel Gougeon]

As suspected, the bug originates from the * operator, that is still not 
reliable between uint64 or int64:
--> b
  b  =
   230584300921369395*5*

--> b * uint64(1)
  ans  =
   230584300921369395*2*

This was reported in 2018 @ http://bugzilla.scilab.org/15836 and is 
still unfixed.

For bitget, i will see how to do, if there is a workaround. If not, at 
least warn users in the help page.

Samuel

Le 27/02/2020 à 16:58, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
> Le 27/02/2020 à 16:17, JLan a écrit :
>> I wonder if i have misunderstood the documentation for bitget, or if 
>> this is
>> a bug? It seems to me that numbers > 2^53 are still not handled 
>> correctly.
>> --> a=uint64(2^61)
>>   a  =   2305843009213693952
>> --> b=uint64(2^61)+1
>>   b  =   2305843009213693953
>
> bitget(b,1)
>
> --> bitget(b,1)
>  ans  =
>   0
>
> is a bug.
> bitget.tst tests int64 and uint64 cases with other inttypes:
> --> edit SCI\modules\elementary_functions\tests\unit_tests\bitget.tst
>
> When bitget() has been extended to 64 bits integers ~3 years ago, 
> several bugs have appeared about the processing of these integers by 
> other Scilab functions, noticeably some functions involved in the 
> bitget implementation.
> Not all are fixed (actually, only few of them are fixed).
> But maybe it's another issue here. I could have a look, about this 
> specific case.
>
> If you can do other tests and get issues, please report all of them on 
> bugzilla.
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20200227/f5310f2a/attachment.htm>