Message105602
>I was planning to add a "if (dx > (double) LONG_MAX)" check. Would
> that be sufficient?
Hmm. It's subtle. On an LP64 machine, LONG_MAX will be 2**63-1, which isn't exactly representable as a double. So (double) LONG_MAX would likely be 2.0**63 exactly (depending on rounding mode, but round-half-to-even is probably a safe assumption unless someone's deliberately messing around). Then that check would fail for dx == 2.**63 exactly.
Turn it into '>=' rather than '>', and I *think* it's okay. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-05-12 19:08:01 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, rhettinger, belopolsky, draghuram, stutzbach |
2010-05-12 19:08:01 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1273691281.25.0.139513169858.issue8692@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-05-12 19:07:59 | mark.dickinson | link | issue8692 messages |
2010-05-12 19:07:58 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|