FWIW in 3.2.2 I don't see the -1 check and the idiv causes an int overflow exception. But silently returning 0 for min_int div -1 feels very wrong imo.
> On 15/05/2023 18:43 CEST Kirinn via fpc-devel > <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote: > > > I didn't see a mention of it in this discussion thread, but dividing the > largest negative integer by -1 does cause an overflow error of some sort, > because of two's complement. > > Just to make sure, do (min_int div -1) and (min_int mod -1) behave the same > way before and after this proposed change? And, what min_int is of course > depends on whether targeting a 32-bit or 64-bit system, so best check both > cases. > > ~Kirinn > > On Mon, 15 May 2023 17:21:30 +0100 > "J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel" <fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org> wrote: > > > I made a merge request that removes the comparison against -1. > > x86_64-win64 and i386-win32 pass without any regressions, so the reason > > behind the change still eludes me. Maybe my fix for #39646 removes the > > need for it? > > > > https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/merge_requests/418 > > > > Kit > > > > On 11/05/2023 23:04, J. Gareth Moreton via fpc-devel wrote: > > > Fair enough, but I would like an explanation as to why it's necessary, > > > because the reason for testing -1 in particular is very unclear, and I > > > wonder if there's a known misbehaviour with a particular division > > > function with -1. > > > > > > Kit > _______________________________________________ > fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org > https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel