On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 20:12:40 GMT, Andy Goryachev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah, yes, you're right it still uses the old `round` instead of `rint` :/
>
> should we have a check for Double.MAX_VALUE to avoid possible misuse?
I think it would best to ignore this in this PR (it was broken before, it is
still now), and instead make a follow-up PR that switches round -> rint (this
was sort of the plan already) as round behaves poorly with our current sentinel
`Double.MAX_VALUE` or anything else that wouldn't fit in a `long`.
In that same PR, we can remove the `ulp` in the ceiling code, as removing an
`ulp` from `Double.MAX_VALUE` severely changes the value with no recourse. A
constant epsilon (that is far smaller than `Double.MAX_VALUE`) would just be
ignored, ie:
Double.MAX_VALUE - 0.0000001 == Double.MAX_VALUE
But
Double.MAX_VALUE - ulp(Double.MAX_VALUE) >> Double.MAX_VALUE
(with `>>` meaning a lot smaller)
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2278#discussion_r3898064316
