From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15875 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2010 20:47:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15862 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2010 20:47:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:47:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34164 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OlT4T-0006VJ-1U; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:47:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:47:00 -0000 Message-ID: <43k4np6k66.wl%bjg@gnu.org> From: Brian Gough To: Thanh Vo Cc: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org, bug-gsl@gnu.org, "Earl T. Barr" Subject: Re: [Bug-gsl] Potential Bugs? In-Reply-To: <43mxsl6klg.wl%bjg@gnu.org> References: <43mxsl6klg.wl%bjg@gnu.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/23.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q3/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 At Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:38:19 +0100, Brian Gough wrote: > The overflow exception is a valid warning. It's also a bug in the > sense that it is avoidable (although the end result is correct, z=-1 > since 1/inf=0). It would be better written as (32/y)/y. Of course, apart from the extra factor of 2^5 that gives an underflow instead but it's probably preferable to an overflow.