[mckilljoy]

At the time the original code was written, it wasn't possible for a 32-bit integer to overflow, which is presumably why they didn't use 64-bit. That possibility was only introduced in the patch, and no one caught the bug that came with it.

Running 64-bit would have "prevented" this bug simply by virtual of that fact that the default datatype would have been big enough to avoid overflow, but it isn't really a solution. I just find 32-bit vs. 64-bit to be inconsequential to the real mistake, which was an improper software development process.