lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Did some fixing to the patch, long hex values can now be printed out by:

   print( string.format("%x",v) )

The remaining - and quite foundational - issue is that due to not wanting to change "outside interfaces" in the patch, Lua VM constants are still only using numbers (float/double) and not integers. This is very annoying in Sam's situation, and prevents use of the now built-in 0x notation (had forgotten, but it actually is there, and works...)

So, currently:

Lua 5.1  Copyright (C) 1994-2006, PUC-Rio

print(0xfaaaca29 * 2^32 + 0x7e488e35)

print(a*2^32 + 0x7e488e35)

The last is "right", and works because assignment to 'a' causes the value to be stored as an integer, and calculations fit within the int64 range.

Fixing the above two would mean, that integer detection is done already at lvm.c, and causes changes in the VM bytecode (basically just exposing the integer type at that level).

I would feel this is something Lua authors should do, if they were to sometime integrate my integer patch with mainline code; I feel hesitant walking past that bridge..


On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:35:28 +0300
 Asko Kauppi <> wrote:

The only way to get to these patches is by svn checkout (sorry, no Google! :)

  svn co svn://

They were developed on 5.0.2 but are currently applied to 5.1. Some might work on both.

Hex input/output shouldn't be harder than any hex syntax patching of Lua, but it's not the work of the same patch. They can be "aware" of each other, though, so that 0xFAAACA297E488E35 becomes possible if (and only if) 64-bit integers are actually supported.

Decimal unsigned 64-bit input/output is much a no-go; integers are _not_ a separate type when it comes to Lua scripts, and C API. They are simply a high precision subgroup of Lua numbers, and must therefore be signed. 18062471535083949621 presents a number outside of that integer precision region, and would end up being 1.8062471535084e+19.

0xFAAACA297E488E35 would become -384272538625601995, or so it does with the code below (run with doubles, int64):

(one further notion, if you need integer wrap-around from 0x8000...0000 to 0 and back, the patch is not for you. Numbers don't wrap around, they simply fall into the less precise FP realm.)

local hex= "FAAACA297E488E35"
local v= 0

for i=1,string.len(hex) do
   local v2=0
   local c= string.upper( string.sub(hex,i,i) )
   if c>='0' and c<='9' then
      v2= tonumber(c)
   elseif c>='A' and c<='F' then
      v2= 10+string.byte(c)-string.byte('A')
      error( "Not hex: "..c )
   v= v*16 + v2


--> -384272538625601995

Sam Roberts kirjoitti 21.7.2006 kello 22.07:

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 09:07:49PM +0300, Asko Kauppi wrote:
Hmm. The "int patch" discussed on the list a few times actually
allows you to use int64 and doubles, as well.

This means, you'd get full int64 range for any integer numbers, and
doubles for the rest.

We use UNSIGNED 64 bit ints, and since they are random, about 50% of them will have a bit pattern that will be "negative". This is why I
haven't looked at the patch before.

I suppose with some casting we can just convert the signed rep to unsigned in our C code. But when I want to represent 0xFAAACA297E488E35 in lua source, will I will have to first convert to decimal, 18062471535083949621, and then do something to figure out the
representation as a negative?

Maybe you see why long double sounds so interesting to me! Both signed
AND unsigned 64 bit integer varieties. Wow!

My goal is ease of use of our app domain numerics in lua, so the issue of representation in lua source code isn't completely a seperate issue. I understand lua's design rational, I even agree with it, but I sure do
miss the convenience of ruby here:

	  == 18062471535083949621
	  == 0o1752526242457622107065
== 0b1111101010101010110010100010100101111110010010001000111000110101

Even without arbitrary size integers (which would cause bloat in the lua core and is out of the question), the appropriate representation for a number depends on the application domain, and hex, binary, and octal all have their places. Lua's strength is application specific language
apps, so it would fit in, I think.

Interested? :)

Sure I'm interested, I'll definitely give it a try and see how it works.

We use lua 5.0.2 (sorry, not my fault), so hopefully it isn't 5.1 specific.

Where can I find it?

I think thats the other reason I haven't used it yet, its hard to find
with google!