Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3EA5789C.F1E0CFBB@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:15:08 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
CC: andnews AT ihug DOT com DOT oz DOT au, DJGPP newsgroup <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Bug 00314 -- div() still broken
References: <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> <3EA57418 DOT 2060506 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello.

Eric Rudd wrote:
> 
> 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.

I thought maybe someone knew something I didn't. Like: perhaps this code gives
the correct behaviour with long long, but smaller types don't need it?

> 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.

I haven't seen any posts to djgpp-workers. Thanks for posting to
comp.os.msdos.djgpp too!

> 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.

The new 2.03 releases were made off the 2.03 maintenance branch. I can't
remember the tag. It probably branches off the 2.03 release tag, which means
that it wouldn't have any fixes made in CVS after the 2.03 release.

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

Andrew added lldiv. If he agrees, I'll fix lldiv in CVS. 2.04 alpha 1 is due
on the 28th April, so we should fix it before that!

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]