Message-ID: <3EA57418.2060506@cyberoptics.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:55:52 -0500
From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Organization: CyberOptics
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
CC: andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au
Subject: Re: Bug 00314 -- div() still broken
References: <3e9c6920$0$21928$afc38c87@> <fA9pa.20115$1s1 DOT 299825 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com> <dsbaavskl0dei9epnr9t4qnu2nn16d96sj AT 4ax DOT com> <3EA54F78 DOT C46438ED AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
In-Reply-To: <3EA54F78.C46438ED@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.214.98.62
X-Trace: 1051030531  1244 65.214.98.62
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:

>I'm having trouble understanding why it doesn't just do % and /. Why is there
>all this other code?
>
div() and ldiv() were originally this way as well.  I don't understand 
why those extra tests were ever in there, since they not only complicate 
the code, but result in incorrect behavior.  At some point one gives up 
trying to understand why the bugs were there, and just fixes them.

Somehow lldiv() was derived from the earlier buggy div() or ldiv(), so 
it also needs to be fixed in an analogous way.  My postings to 
djgpp-workers somehow aren't showing up there, but perhaps one of the 
maintainers could take appropriate action.  I'd submit a new bug report, 
but this is an old bug.

One big question for me is how div() could get fixed in the CVS tree on 
2000-07-08, but the 2.03 libc.a, dated 2001-12-24, still contained the 
old, buggy div().  It appears that the 2.03 tags didn't get updated.

I just looked at the CVS tips, and it appears that div() and ldiv() are 
correct, but lldiv() is not.

-Eric Rudd
rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com