At 19:58 05-09-01, Gavin Sherry wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> > In what cases do you see a problem with that? If (d) is bigger than
> > LONG_MAX, than you're screwed anyway.
>
>I presume you are refering to my proposed hack? Perhaps a little more
>detail =).
Nope :) I was actually referring to the way the code looks like right now.
>If the type of either operand is greater than long, it cannot be demoted
>(from double) without overflowing lval and giving unexpected results.
But when you overflow an integer, you get unexpected results. The only
thing this code does is that in certain cases, where the lval would have
been overflown and populated with meaningless info, instead, it populates
it as if it's an unsigned long. If you use this information bitwise, then
it's useful.
>Instead, the relevant operations could be performed on unsigned longs,
>with the result being cast to the most appropriate type (double or
>long) based on whether op1 & op2 <= LONG_MAX.
Can you give an example of something that doesn't work with the way the
code is currently?
Zeev
--
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
