>
> 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 |