• smitten
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Ah yes, the well known i5.90689059561

      Edit: i5.90689059560851852932405837343720668462464580071706167251050905035703300440298377837242021827745839719063803418530941917054164942532445171041739

        • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m not OP, but my guess is they’re referring to the Intel math bug that some i5’s had. I’m struggling to track it down, but it’s basically an issue with doing long division where the floating point math would produce a very wrong result.

          You can see more here at least for the bug/issue that existed in the 90’s here

          • smitten
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not actually, just that a binary integer that overflows at 60 couldn’t exist, hence the 5.907 whatever bit length

            • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              oh, that’s actually clever. And I’m saying that as a software engineer. I missed that possibility :)

              • smitten
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                I should have phrased it differently, like “Ah yes, the well known 5.9068905956 bit integer.” But thanks