"David E. Wheeler" <[email protected]> writes:
> It claims that a test unexpected passes. That is, Test #31 is expected to
> fail, because it intentionally tests a version in which its parts overflow
> the int32[3] they’re stored in, with the expectation that one day we can
> refactor the type to handle larger version parts.
> I can’t imagine there would be any circumstance under which int32 would
> somehow be larger than a signed 32-bit integer, but perhaps there is?
I'd bet more along the lines of "your overflow check is less portable than
you thought".
regards, tom lane
