Content deleted Content added
Tag: |
→Integer Underflow: new section |
||
Line 97:
:::
:::I haven't followed it exactly, but I am pretty sure that there are plenty of sources. There is a lot of discussion, especially as programs fail. C has always had overflow undefined, as different processors do different things. But many people know what the common processors do, and assume that. Now they get surprised. The (x+2 > x) is the easy case, but there are many that are harder to see, and that compiler optimizers seem to find. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 20:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
== Integer Underflow ==
This page had a similar passage trying to prove Integer Underflow with the same bogus sources as Arithmetic Underflow's page. In Arithmetric Underflow's Talk I have posted information discrediting the sources provided.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arithmetic_underflow
I am under the belief these sections were provided by a biased individual, not formally educated in Computer Science, trying to prove a falsehood. The mere existence of a term in blogs, bug reports, section titles and circular reference should not be enough to prop a term into existence. Integer Underflow is not a quality term and is formed from a basic misunderstanding of what Integer Overflow is.
In Arithmetric Underflow, I removed the passage as I easily discredited the sources. Arithmetic underflow is more focused on floating point operations. Here I left it in place as there was an ambiguity section. I felt adding proper disqualification of the sources made the most sense. [[Special:Contributions/24.112.251.203|24.112.251.203]] ([[User talk:24.112.251.203|talk]]) 08:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
| |||