[freenet-devl] Re: Yet another GCJ update. (a/k/a PR 1615 followup)

Tue Feb 20 17:20:00 GMT 2001

"Mark J. Roberts" <mjr@statesmean.com> writes:
> However, I've observed the problem Warren was talking about, where mod
> will sometimes return negative values, in modPow. This is almost certainly
> the sole cause of the bogus results. Here's one example (run with a fresh
> checkout from two weeks ago, because the current tree won't build):

Well, as I pointed out in my follow-up to 1615, the implementation
of modPow (at least as of my last check-out) is obvious suspect,
given that s is never used. I would fix that first ...
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/