Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.21.MISMATCH!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe17.iad.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail
From: David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Arithmetic overflow checking
References: <015aeb15-57db-48ab-9cd4-77f8448b632f@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> <2rydnez7l-H5BYnTnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <CpmdnZ2c6KsSI4jTnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> <wZCdnWNqDO0pe4jTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <9LWdnZH2hdfmyYvTnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> <pPqdnbD2qr5G7ovTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink.com> <3797038f-22d1-40b2-8c12-60db5a0976b8@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4e1bf1bc$0$15671$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> <e7b7711c-93d5-477e-a470-21386854ff6f@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <4e1c149b$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>
In-Reply-To: <4e1c149b$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <a7XSp.65579$8G4.36986@newsfe17.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.193.237.254
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.net
X-Trace: newsfe17.iad 1310473798 67.193.237.254 (Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:29:58 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:29:58 UTC
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:29:50 -0400
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6119 comp.lang.c:8173

On 12/07/2011 5:34 AM, io_x wrote:
> "tm"<thomas.mertes@gmx.at>  ha scritto nel messaggio
>> Yes, but it must be checked after every operation.
>> A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this
>> extra checks.
>
> #in how i see that
> #i like extra checks
> #if hardware 'triggers' an interrupt all you lost the prog
> #or lost the control of the program; and this is not good.

I seem to recall at least one computer architecture where a hardware 
interrupt essentially simulated a procedure call (indirectly through a 
fixed address), so the location where the exception occurred would be 
known to the exception handler. Thus control could be returned to the 
point of exception if desired (which it usually wasn't -- some sort of 
stack unwinding was likely better).