[issue8692] Use divide-and-conquer for faster factorials

[Mark Dickinson]

Mark Dickinson <dickinsm at gmail.com> added the comment:

>I was planning to add a "if (dx > (double) LONG_MAX)" check.  Would
> that be sufficient?

Hmm.  It's subtle.  On an LP64 machine, LONG_MAX will be 2**63-1, which isn't exactly representable as a double.  So (double) LONG_MAX would likely be 2.0**63 exactly (depending on rounding mode, but round-half-to-even is probably a safe assumption unless someone's deliberately messing around).  Then that check would fail for dx == 2.**63 exactly.

Turn it into '>=' rather than '>', and I *think* it's okay.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue8692>
_______________________________________