Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: >I was planning to add a "if (dx > (double) LONG_MAX)" check. Would > that be sufficient?
Hmm. It's subtle. On an LP64 machine, LONG_MAX will be 2**63-1, which isn't exactly representable as a double. So (double) LONG_MAX would likely be 2.0**63 exactly (depending on rounding mode, but round-half-to-even is probably a safe assumption unless someone's deliberately messing around). Then that check would fail for dx == 2.**63 exactly. Turn it into '>=' rather than '>', and I *think* it's okay. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8692> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
