Jens Vollinga wrote:

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've no strong feeling one way or the other. Go, apply it, but please make sure you write the comparison as cl_value_len >= 32 since CLN 1.2 will use more of those bits of a 64 bit digit on machines that support it. What makes me wonder is why there is no such warning with the other ctor from unsigned. Regards -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>