Talk:Factorial: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (moved Talk:Factorial function to Talk:Factorial) |
(→The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly == |
|||
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:56, 27 April 2010
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --Short Circuit 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —ShinTakezou 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)