Reply to: 32-bit integer overflows

[Zippy]

Yep - there's some very clever people on here, for sure.






And some right eejuts too !

Did somebody call?

[AtW]

Yep - there's some very clever people on here, for sure.






And some right eejuts too !

I was going to ask which one is you, but then again I don't need to, right?

[Platypus]

My solution would have involved getting top 10 CUK contractors to implement the system with a huge bonus if they succeed. I guess you've just ruled yourself out from that exclusive pool

Yep - there's some very clever people on here, for sure.






And some right eejuts too !

[AtW]

Are we surprised, given AtW's "solution" for the NHS system?

My solution would have involved getting top 10 CUK contractors to implement the system with a huge bonus if they succeed. I guess you've just ruled yourself out from that exclusive pool

[AtW]

Not 64 bit yet, eh?

We are heavily 64-bit.

Being 64-bit does not mean having each variable being of 64 bit type.

HTH

[Platypus]

Not 64 bit yet, eh?

Are we surprised, given AtW's "solution" for the NHS system?

[darmstadt]

Not again!

Not 64 bit yet, eh?

[minestrone]

(Except those people who think you need to get an email confirmation of permission from every webmaster on the planet... )

Well maybe Alexi could hire you.

[AtW]

ta mate.

Some more work to workaround the bug and then drinks later - well earned today for sure

[RichardCranium]

Gotta respect ya, sitting there giving it on a Sunday. When you're rich, nobody will be able to say you didn't earn it.

(Except those people who think you need to get an email confirmation of permission from every webmaster on the planet... )

[AtW]

Hang on, 2 thousand million? Not 4 thousand million? You're not using signed integers, are you? Do many URLs have a negative number of backlinks?

[RichardCranium]

Did not expect (2 years ago when it was coded) that we'd have URLs with more than 2 billion backlinks in our index - we've got 12 now out of a trillion+

Aha! There's your problem. Americanisms.

You know I have been banging on about your spelling of "centre" all week? Well, now you've gone and fallen over because you've used nasty American billions.

If you'd been using proper British billions, you'd be able to handle loads more backlinks.


Hang on, 2 thousand million? Not 4 thousand million? You're not using signed integers, are you? Do many URLs have a negative number of backlinks?

[minestrone]

Code more defensively

Fail fast.

A defensive coding option always bottles up the problems.

[AtW]

You've an I/O bound system, not processor bound.

We CPU bound at the moment actually. Not for long - you'll have to wait for relevant SKA News in due course to know more

[AtW]

Tut, tut. Schoolboy error. Crap programming in a crap language.

There's no other excuse.

You've an I/O bound system, not processor bound. Code more defensively, and less for speed. And in future, do proper analysis before making assumptions.


HTH

Did not expect (2 years ago when it was coded) that we'd have URLs with more than 2 billion backlinks in our index - we've got 12 now out of a trillion+