• smitten
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Ah yes, the well known i5.90689059561

    Edit: i5.90689059560851852932405837343720668462464580071706167251050905035703300440298377837242021827745839719063803418530941917054164942532445171041739

      • Tyfud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 days 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
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

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

          • Tyfud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days 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
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

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