On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:43:54 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

Only a couple of days!? [awed emoticon here]

Yes - I did mention that I knew what I was looking for based on the
actuary's statement, did I not?

There have been a few bugs of this flavor on many systems in the
past. I vaguely recall one where the work around was to
split up the calculation statement. I don't remember the platform
nor the language nor the decade when it happened.

That worked on this one. Splitting it up meant that a temporary result
in a register got stored as permanent before the "requires more than 4
FP registers" limit was hit.

I remember the extra-slick IBM salesman at the time pointing out the
place in the programmer's manual where it stated you were to avoid
using mixed-mode arithmetic (mixing FP and integer operands in the
same expression), so I rewrote it using all FP terms, and it still
screwed up, as I knew it would, hahaha. I don't know why that warning
was there - it handled the conversion between integer, single
precision FP and double precision FP perfectly okay, both coming and
going.