[Python-Dev] gcc 4.2 exposes signed integer overflows

[David Hopwood]

Thomas Wouters wrote:
> On 8/26/06, David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> CPython should be fixed anyway. The correct fix is
>> "if (y == -1 && x < 0 && (unsigned long)x == -(unsigned long)x)".
> 
> Why not just "... && x == LONG_MIN"?

Because the intent is to check that x / y does not overflow a long, and
x == LONG_MIN would not cause an overflow on 1's complement or sign-magnitude
systems.

(CPython has probably only been tested on 2's complement systems anyway,
but if we're going to be pedantic about depending only on things in the
C standard...)

-- 
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood at blueyonder.co.uk>