Hi Michaël,
>> I think it is overkill, but do as you feel.
>
> Perhaps we could have Robert decide on this one first? That's a bug after
> all that had better be backpatched.
Fine with me.
> [modulo...] Right, forgot this one, we just need to check if rval is -1
> here, and return 0 as result. I am updating the fix as attached.
This looks to me like it works.
I still feel that the condition should be simplified, probably with:
if (lval < 0 && *resval <= 0) ...
(instead of < in my previous suggestion, if some processors return 0 on
-INT64_MIN). Also, a comment is needed to explain why such a bizarre
condition is used/needed for just the INT64_MIN case.
--
Fabien.
