Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:15:25 +0900 (JST) | From | "Robert V. Schipper" <> | Subject | Re: signal(SIGFPE,SIG_IGN), possible solution? |
| |
On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Gerard Roudier wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Ben Wing wrote: > > ...... > > > You've sent this whole long flame, but completely missed the point > > that I was *NOT* talking about division by zero, but rather about > > overflow -- e.g. if I divide 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF (a 64-bit number) > > by 0xFFFFFFF (a 28-bit number) using the idivl instruction, the > > processor issues an exception because the result does not fit into > > 32 bit, but takes 36 bits. Returning MAX_INT here is NOT random -- > > it's the closest reasonable approximation. > > I am not able to understand all the details of this boring thread. > However, I think that a result that is 16 times smaller than the right one, > is not reasonnable regardless it is random or not. >
The point is, returning MAX_INT is just as arbitrary as returning zero or some other number. Wing's "closest reasonable approximation" is indeed nonsense. Try dividing his 64-bit number by 0xF, and figure out the factor by which his "approximation" is off. This thread should die, IMHO.
> Do you think that some E.T. who would get the following result: > Human body have 32 legs. > would thank you for your "possible solution". > > Gerard. > > > > >
| Robert V. Schipper (rvs@gol.com) | Netherlands Embassy, Tokyo, Japan |
| |