“We never thought a video would be watched in numbers greater than a 32-bit integer (=2,147,483,647 views)…”
2,147,483,647 is 231 – 1, the maximum positive value a 32-bit signed integer can contain.
Google has since fixed the counter, but they didn’t say how (32-bit unsigned integer? 64-bit integer?). (Update: By deduction from this Wall Street Journal article, Google is now using 64-bit signed integers — although the number they cite is 263, not 263 – 1.)
The interesing thing is the “Easter egg” Google placed. If you hover your mouse over the counter, it spins like a slot machine; if you hold the mouse there long enough it will show a negative number. But the negative number is not what I expected. Is there a bug in the Easter egg?
I recently wrote that App Inventor represents its numbers in floating-point. I’ve since discovered something curious about integers. When typed into math blocks, they are represented in floating-point; but when generated through calculations, they are represented as arbitrary-precision integers — big integers.
After discovering that App Inventor represents numbers in floating-point, I wanted to see how it handled some edge case decimal/floating-point conversions. In one group of tests, I gave it numbers that were converted to floating-point incorrectly in other programming languages (I include the famous PHP and Java numbers). In another group of tests, I gave it numbers that, when converted to floating-point and back, demonstrate the rounding algorithm used when printing halfway cases. It turns out that App Inventor converts all examples correctly, and prints numbers using the round-half-to-even rule.
I am exploring App Inventor, an Android application development environment for novice programmers. I am teaching it to my kids, as an introductory step towards “real” app development. While playing with it I wondered: are its numbers implemented in decimal? No, they aren’t. They are implemented in double-precision binary floating-point. I put together a few simple block programs to demonstrate this, and to expose the usual floating-point “gotchas”.
GCC was recently fixed so that its decimal to floating-point conversions are done correctly; it now calls the MPFR function mpfr_strtofr() instead of using its own algorithm. However, GCC still does its conversion in two steps: first it converts to an intermediate precision (160 or 192 bits), and then it rounds that result to a target precision (53 bits for double-precision floating-point). That is double rounding — how does it avoid double rounding errors? It uses round-to-odd rounding on the intermediate result.
I don’t write about computer programming, but I do write extensively about how computers work — in particular, about how they do arithmetic with binary numbers. For your “hour of code” I’d like to introduce you to binary numbers and binary addition. I’ve selected several of my articles for you to read, and I’ve written some exercises you can try on my online calculators.
This fix, which will be available in version 4.9, scraps the old algorithm and replaces it with a call to MPFR function mpfr_strtofr(). I tested the fix on version 4.8.1, replacing its copy of gcc/real.c with the fixed one. I found no incorrect conversions.
While running some of GCC’s string to double conversion testcases I discovered a bug in David Gay’s strtod(): it converts some very small subnormal numbers incorrectly. Unlike numbers 2-1075 or smaller, which should convert to zero under round-to-nearest/ties-to-even rounding, numbers between 2-1075 and 2-1074 should convert to 2-1074, the smallest number representable in double-precision binary floating-point. strtod() correctly converts the former to 0, but it incorrectly converts the latter to 0 as well.