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
