The current steps use a unique way of checking for overflows:
i. Set count to count + 1.
ii. If count ≥ 2**53, then (...)
This compares count to a value outside of the valid integer range. I believe the spec has explicitly avoided defining comparisons with integer outside of the range as shown in the following examples:
The current steps use a unique way of checking for overflows:
This compares
count
to a value outside of the valid integer range. I believe the spec has explicitly avoided defining comparisons with integer outside of the range as shown in the following examples:2**53 - 1
I think it would be better to swap these instructions with this:
which would avoid a value of
count
outside of the integer range. Thanks for the proposal.