Since this code is duplicated in both div128 and rem128, should we
perhaps pull this out into a new subroutine? Or is that not worth
the hastle?
-derek
Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ gncint128 mu = mult128 (quotient.lo, d);
+
+ gint64 nn = 0x7fffULL n.lo;
+
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:52:06PM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
Since this code is duplicated in both div128 and rem128, should we
perhaps pull this out into a new subroutine? Or is that not worth
the hastle?
I thought it was not worth the effort.
--
pub 1024D/01045933
Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fix the test case; it really is an overflow on division,
there's a bunch of huge prime numbers involved.
Unfortunately this test-case actually came from test-query.. It had
created a random transaction that happened to have those two values as
the
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:30:46PM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fix the test case; it really is an overflow on division,
there's a bunch of huge prime numbers involved.
Unfortunately this test-case actually came from test-query.. It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:30:46PM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark:
Linas Vepstas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
fix the test case; it really is an overflow on division,
there's a bunch of huge prime numbers involved.
Unfortunately this
