RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 29 22:10:22 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068526.html

Hi Tim,

On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Thomas Wouters]
> > Why not just "... && x == LONG_MIN"?

> it's better (when possible) not to tie the code to that `x` was
> specifically declared as type "long" (e.g., just more stuff that will
> break if Python decides to make its short int of type PY_LONG_LONG
> instead).

The proposed "correct fix" breaks this goal too:

> >> "if (y == -1 && x < 0 && (unsigned long)x == -(unsigned long)x)".

                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A bientot,

Armin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-August/068526.html below:

[Python-Dev] gcc 4.2 exposes signed integer overflows