Closed sifislag closed 1 year ago
43 tests ±0 43 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 22m 37s :stopwatch: + 3m 48s 1 suites ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 1 files ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit e8e3ec33. ± Comparison against base commit 44086dd3.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
43 tests ±0 43 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 19m 25s :stopwatch: - 1m 34s 1 suites ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 1 files ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit e8e3ec33. ± Comparison against base commit 44086dd3.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
Hi @snf, my reasoning is that Variable_NumericValue()
will contain the subset of Variable_Value()
that we can model with souffle's arithmetic. I had a quick look through the uses and it looked consistent with what I had in mind. In all other cases we can use Variable_Value()
directly. Do you want us to revisit your PR based on an example?
You're right about 0x7fffffff
, changing it.
Went with a different approach to solving the problem you've identified in my latest commit. Check it out and let me know what you think.
I cannot try til next week but it looks good to me. Thanks for the change
Thanks for your input! Let me know when you're able to check it.
I think this may bring issues later as values won't be classified as NumericValues? Also last time I checked the values saturated to 0x7fffffff.
Still have this PR here which is probably not the correct solution either: https://github.com/nevillegrech/gigahorse-toolchain/pull/42/files . The reason I went for it is because most of the ones I observed were negative.