| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |
| Date: | 2020-01-04 00:38:45 |
| Message-ID: | 0d4d936c-a409-e609-d0fd-2e009b2f47e1@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/01/2020 01:26, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 04/01/2020 01:21, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 03/01/2020 20:14, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>>> I'm unsure about gcd(INT_MIN, 0) should error. Possibly 0 would be nicer?
>>> What justification for that do you have?
>> Zero is the "correct" answer for that, isn't it, independently of overflow
>> considerations?
>
> I would say not. The correct answer is INT_MIN but we've decided a
> negative result is not desirable.
Wolfram Alpha agrees.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gcd%28-9223372036854775808%2C0%29
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2020-01-04 00:41:20 | Re: sidewinder has one failure |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-04 00:34:04 | Re: Greatest Common Divisor |