Optimize integer comparisons between fixnum and bignum #2362
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Bignums should never be in the NAT_MIN_FIXNUM..NAT_MAX_FIXNUM range, so we can optimize some comparisons between the different backing types.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bignums should never be in the NAT_MIN_FIXNUM..NAT_MAX_FIXNUM range, so we can optimize some comparisons between the different backing types.
Fixes #2344.
I'm open to adding an assertion somewhere, but I couldn't think of a nice way of doing it. We could replace all the
m_bignum =assignments with a setter likeset_bignum()and add an assertion there. But when I grep form_bignum =they all are in the constructors, and I figure we can easily eyeball that those are all doing the right thing. Again, open to suggestions!