Bonjour Vik,
>> Should there be a NUMERIC version as well? I'd say maybe yes.
>
> I thought about that, too, but also decided against it for this patch.
Hmmm. ISTM that int functions are available for numeric?
>> I'm wondering what it should do on N, 0 and 0, 0. Raise an error?
>> Return 0? Return 1? return N? There should be some logic and comments
>> explaining it.
>
> Well, gcd(N, 0) is N, and gcd(0, 0) is 0, so I don't see an issue here?
I think that there should be a comment.
>> I'd test with INT_MIN and INT_MAX.
>
> Okay, I'll add tests for those, instead of the pretty much random values
> I have now.
>
>> C modulo operator (%) is a pain because it is not positive remainder
>> (2 % -3 == -1 vs 2 % 3 == 2, AFAICR).
>
> This does not seem to be the case...
Indeed, I tested quickly with python, but it has yet another behavior as
shown above, what a laugh!
So with C: 2 % -3 == 2, -2 % 3 == -2
Note that AFAICS there is no integer i so that 3 * i - (-2) == -2.
>> It does not seem that fixing the sign afterwards is the right thing to
>> do. I'd rather turn both arguments positive before doing the descent.
>
> Why isn't it the right thing to do?
Because I do not trust C modulo as I had a lot of problems with it? :-)
If it works, but it should deserve a clear comment explaining why.
>> Which raises an issue with INT_MIN by the way, which has no positive:-(
>
> That's an argument against abs-ing the input values. It's only an issue
> with gcd(INT_MIN, INT_MIN) which currently returns INT_MIN.
That should be an error instead, because -INT_MIN cannot be represented?
> Any other value with INT_MIN will be 1 or something lower than INT_MAX.
Looks ok.
>> Also, the usual approach is to exchange args so that the largest is
>> first, because there may be a software emulation if the hardware does
>> not implement modulo. At least it was the case with some sparc
>> processors 25 years ago:-)
>
> The args will exchange themselves.
Yep, but after a possibly expensive software-emulated modulo operation?
--
Fabien.