On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 19:34:40 GMT, Johannes Graham <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Ah got it, I see your point. We would have goten underflow in >> `ASCIIToBinaryConverter.doubleValue()` for some extreme cases without a >> check. >> >> Is there a specific example you have that requires the switch to the newer >> check? Adding a comment along those lines might be helpful. Actually, I >> thought DigitList caps `decimalAt` to Integer.MIN/MAX, so then the first >> check you had would have been fine. (Maybe I am missing something?) > > I don't have a specific example, so I've reverted to my original check. I'm a > bit unsettled by the check for an extreme value later in `doubleValue()` > comparing against `MIN_DECIMAL_EXPONENT - 1` IMO, the original check you had is easier to understand what is happening without further context, so I prefer your switch back. I think we are fine from (negative) "extreme values" in `doubleValue()` because of the check you have implemented in the first place. i.e. we avoid any potential underflow from `int exp = decExponent - kDigits;`. I think we do need a comment to accompany the check. (Why do we check? why not check the max exponent value?) Also, should the check be against `MIN_DECIMAL_EXPONENT - 1` for consistency with `doubleValue()`? (Functionally, I don't think it matters.) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25644#discussion_r2150586388
