RetroSearch Browse

Sun Aug 27 03:18:37 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068488.html

Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 8/26/06, David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> CPython should be fixed anyway. The correct fix is
>> "if (y == -1 && x < 0 && (unsigned long)x == -(unsigned long)x)".
> 
> Why not just "... && x == LONG_MIN"?

Because the intent is to check that x / y does not overflow a long, and
x == LONG_MIN would not cause an overflow on 1's complement or sign-magnitude
systems.

(CPython has probably only been tested on 2's complement systems anyway,
but if we're going to be pedantic about depending only on things in the
C standard...)

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068488.html below:

[Python-Dev] gcc 4.2 exposes signed integer overflows