On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> (instead of < in my previous suggestion, if some processors return 0 on
> -INT64_MIN). Also, a comment is needed to explain why such a bizarre
> condition is used/needed for just the INT64_MIN case.
The last patch I sent has this bit:
+ /*
+ * Some machines throw a floating-point exception
+ * for INT64_MIN % -1, the correct answer being
+ * zero in any case.
+ */
How would you reformulate that à-la-Fabien?
--
Michael