No, I stand by my code. If the final loop ends with a negative result, it
is necessarily MIN_VALUE, since otherwise there was overflow.
But -MIN_VALUE == MIN_VALUE, so no harm is done! Compile it and see...
--
Eric Blake, Elixent, Castlemead, Lwr Castle St., Bristol BS1 3AG, UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+44(0)117 917 5611
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Scott Ananian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 27 July 2001 16:59
> To: Eric Blake
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; classpath
> Subject: Re: [Classpath] RE: Informative throws
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Eric Blake wrote:
>
> > if (negative)
> > return -result;
> > return result;
> > }
>
> you actually have to do this the other way 'round (maintain the number
> negative as you build it, then negate it if the number was really
> positive) because the negative range of the integer types is larger than
> the positive range. Try parsing Integer.MIN_VALUE, for example: your code
> will break.
> --s
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
