On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 17:04:49 GMT, fabioromano1 <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> OK. >> But for the sake of completeness, I would add at least one test case for an >> overflowing `workingScale`. >> >> Other than that, the PR is then in good shape for approval. > >> OK. But for the sake of completeness, I would add at least one test case for >> an overflowing `workingScale`. > > I'm afraid it's not possible to produce such a test case, with the current > implementation of `BigInteger`. > Indeed, `workingScale` is defined by `workingScale = this.scale - normScale`, > and `normScale` by: > > long normScale = minWorkingPrec - this.precision() + this.scale; > normScale += normScale & 1L; > > Therefore `workingScale == this.precision() - minWorkingPrec - (normScale & > 1L)`, so to overflow `workingScale` it is necessary to maximize > `this.precision()`, thus`this.intVal` must have at least `Integer.MAX_VALUE + > 1` digits, but `BigInteger.TEN.pow(Integer.MAX_VALUE)` surely exceeds the > supported range for `BigInteger`s... Actually, this proves also that `workingScale` should never overflow... ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21301#discussion_r1858943929
