On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > (instead of < in my previous suggestion, if some processors return 0 on > -INT64_MIN). 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? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
