emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#13031: closed (large numbers)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#13031: closed (large numbers)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:08:02 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:06:41 -0500
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#13031: large numbers
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #13031,
regarding large numbers
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
13031: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13031
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: large numbers Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:42:09 +0100
Hi,

It looks that guile returns incorrect results when it works with really big 
numbers.

I've found it during resolving problem 48 from Project Euler:

http://projecteuler.net/problem=48

The solution is trivial:

(define (problem-48 limit)
 (define (F)
   (let loop ((n 1)
              (sum 0))
     (if (<= n limit)
         (loop (+ n 1) (+ sum (expt n n)))
         sum)))

 (let* ((str (number->string (F)))
          (len (string-length str)))
   (substring str (- len 10) len)))

(display (problem-48 1000))
(newline)


The proper answer is 9110846700 but guile returns 6457854188

I've tested solution under other scheme implementations (MIT scheme, petite and 
mzscheme) and it works as it should.

Does such a big numbers in guile require any special treatment or just they are 
not supported?

Best,
Jozef


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#13031: large numbers Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:06:41 -0500 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)
Hi Jozef,

Jozef Chraplewski <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes, I use 64-bit machine and (* (expt 2 32) (expt 2 32)) produces 0 (without 
> the patch).
>
> I've applied your fix and it works perfectly.

Excellent!  Thanks for bringing this problem to our attention,
and for helping us track it down :)

> I suppose that you will add the patch to the next stable version (2.0.8 ??)

Yes.

   Thanks again,
       Mark


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]