>> 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?
This one about modulo is fine.
I was refering to this other one in the division case:
+ /* overflow check (needed for INT64_MIN) */
+ if (lval != 0 && (*retval < 0 == lval < 0))
Why not use "if (lval == INT64_MIN)" instead of this complicated
condition? If it is really needed for some reason, I think that a comment
could help.
--
Fabien.