Post: <font face="Verdana,Arial,sans-serif" size="2"><b>Reply to this message</b></font>: I guess that attribute overflow has never been observed... by Ramillies

Original Message: I guess that attribute overflow has never been observed...
but there aren't many possibilities. I'd guess that the attributes are stored in 16-bit integers, which means that the maximum value can either be 32767 (if you add one, you roll over to -32768) for a signed integer, or 65535 (with rollover to 0) for an unsigned one. Or, if they are stored in 32-bit integers, which is also quite possible, the overflow would occur for ~ 2.147 billion (for signed), or ~ 4.254 billion (for unsigned). So, to be short: I don't think you need to worry about it. Even 32768 is pretty much unreachable, and the others so much more so.

Original Message: I guess that attribute overflow has never been observed...

but there aren't many possibilities. I'd guess that the attributes are stored in 16-bit integers, which means that the maximum value can either be 32767 (if you add one, you roll over to -32768) for a signed integer, or 65535 (with rollover to 0) for an unsigned one.

Or, if they are stored in 32-bit integers, which is also quite possible, the overflow would occur for ~ 2.147 billion (for signed), or ~ 4.254 billion (for unsigned).

So, to be short: I don't think you need to worry about it. Even 32768 is pretty much unreachable, and the others so much more so.

Back Reply to this message

Name

E-Mail
(optional)

Subject

Reply options

M
E
S
S
A
G
E
HTML tags allowed in message body. Browser view Display HTML as text.

Link URL

Link Title

Image URL