On Wed, 7 May 2025 18:01:24 GMT, fabioromano1 <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> OK. >> >> But then your original expression >> >> (((bitLength() - 1L) * exponent) >>> 5) + 1L > MAX_MAG_LENGTH >> >> was a bit too restrictive as well, right? > >> OK. >> >> But then your original expression >> >> ``` >> (((bitLength() - 1L) * exponent) >>> 5) + 1L > MAX_MAG_LENGTH >> ``` >> >> was a bit too restrictive as well, right? > > On the contrary, it was too loose, as it admitted a bit length equal to > `MAX_MAG_LENGTH * Integer.SIZE == 2^31 > Integer.MAX_VALUE`. I mean, if B strictly implies A, then B is more restrictive (stronger). Since B is equivalent to your original formulation, to me it means that it was more restrictive. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24690#discussion_r2078218931
