Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5905 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-06 08:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-07-09 12:16 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 277 — 46 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:35 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-06 09:42 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking stefan@nyniva.se - 2011-07-06 11:30 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-06 11:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-18 23:06 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-06 10:16 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-07 02:26 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-18 23:07 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-07 07:11 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-07 10:02 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-07 17:51 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-07 20:04 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-07 20:29 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:52 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-18 23:12 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-09 10:31 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 02:58 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-09 08:53 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-09 07:46 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-18 23:17 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-18 23:22 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-10 01:47 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-10 02:47 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-07-10 06:04 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-10 03:29 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 20:52 +0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-07-10 23:29 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-10 04:44 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-12 11:33 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 04:17 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-12 12:33 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 05:24 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-12 21:45 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-12 05:25 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 10:21 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 23:54 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-12 19:14 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-13 00:20 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-12 09:26 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-07-12 10:52 -0600
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-12 16:54 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-12 11:35 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 10:13 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-12 21:53 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 23:41 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-15 10:56 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2011-07-20 09:22 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking gordonb.3urm7@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-20 15:39 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-21 12:12 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-10 09:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-10 06:52 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-10 14:47 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-10 12:25 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-10 10:47 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 07:58 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-11 10:48 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 14:40 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-11 14:54 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 15:55 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-11 21:51 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 21:31 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-11 23:16 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-24 22:13 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2011-07-25 10:24 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-12 09:05 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 02:22 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-12 11:34 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-12 03:04 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-12 03:33 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-12 08:29 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-12 13:18 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-12 11:39 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-12 12:38 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-12 13:20 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-12 13:23 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-12 21:08 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 14:48 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-12 15:24 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 16:09 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-13 10:38 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-13 11:00 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 12:16 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-13 13:10 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-13 13:21 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-13 13:41 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-14 21:10 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-15 11:57 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 04:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2011-08-13 21:54 +0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-07-13 00:52 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-13 07:45 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> - 2011-09-08 21:02 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> - 2011-09-08 21:12 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-08 19:15 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> - 2011-09-08 22:24 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-08 00:30 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-08 01:29 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-08 20:40 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-08 18:17 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-08 19:49 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-08 22:26 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-07-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-09 10:21 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-10 10:53 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-10 18:07 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-10 11:29 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-10 19:22 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:40 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-21 23:06 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 19:38 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-22 00:27 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-10 17:17 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-08 10:23 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-08 19:30 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 08:04 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:43 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 00:28 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-18 23:09 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 00:14 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-15 07:00 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-15 08:09 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 22:07 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:29 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-15 22:26 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:32 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 11:00 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-16 11:15 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 15:41 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-16 23:18 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-17 00:30 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-16 08:39 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 10:33 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 15:51 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 07:03 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 06:21 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 15:43 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-17 09:50 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-17 08:15 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-18 01:12 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:50 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:56 -0500
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-18 19:26 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-18 15:03 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 22:16 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-20 22:25 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-21 08:50 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:37 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:52 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-21 12:19 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:54 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-21 14:46 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 18:10 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-21 23:22 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-21 21:47 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 10:46 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-16 11:13 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 22:09 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 21:01 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-07-21 07:05 -0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-21 06:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-21 12:32 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:58 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 19:14 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-22 13:07 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-22 17:33 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-22 13:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-22 23:16 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 16:50 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-23 20:09 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-24 08:56 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:37 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-23 11:23 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-23 12:04 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-23 14:45 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 11:51 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-23 22:39 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-25 10:20 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-25 13:29 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-25 13:35 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-23 09:39 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-23 21:09 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-23 21:24 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:57 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 22:12 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-07-21 06:41 -0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 16:38 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 22:28 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 22:30 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-06 22:32 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:30 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 07:54 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 05:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-07-07 19:11 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-07 14:21 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Stanimir Stamenkov <s7an10@netscape.net> - 2011-07-09 16:34 +0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-07-06 22:41 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-07 14:34 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 17:29 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-08 10:27 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:15 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-19 20:54 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-19 18:07 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-19 21:31 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-07-20 07:36 -0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@spamweary.invalid> - 2011-07-20 11:58 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-20 09:51 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@spamweary.invalid> - 2011-07-21 12:11 +0100
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-21 12:43 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Tom McGlynn <taqmcglynn@googlemail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:15 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 07:35 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-21 09:03 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-21 12:00 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-22 17:16 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-23 11:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-23 21:03 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-23 22:55 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-24 10:40 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-24 10:54 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-24 11:09 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-24 12:53 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking markspace <-@.> - 2011-07-24 15:15 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-24 15:41 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-25 03:21 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-25 00:56 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-07-25 07:03 -0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-07-26 09:43 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-07-25 11:06 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-25 11:12 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-25 09:30 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-25 13:33 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-26 03:04 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-26 03:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-26 04:53 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-26 11:35 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-26 10:48 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 17:00 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 19:50 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-07-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-07-21 12:52 +0000
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-21 15:58 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-20 14:35 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 18:22 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-21 14:54 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking rop rop <rop049@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 08:09 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-11 10:30 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-11 14:43 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-07-17 17:14 +0200
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2011-07-18 19:28 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-18 16:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-19 21:33 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-19 20:56 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-20 14:36 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-20 18:24 -0400
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-07-21 14:55 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-07-06 22:43 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2011-07-07 14:56 +0300
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-07-08 21:27 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-07-08 21:57 -0700
Re: Arithmetic overflow checking lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 12:16 -0700
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6drm179m8etc30s0u8b0g63rcblltsa67g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6077 |
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:48:47 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McLean
<malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Jul 11, 5:58 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>> Most of the time, the speed is not required. I will take
>> slightly slower, correct results over fast, possibly wrong results.
>>
>The game keeps on changing.
>
>For instance modern space invaders are slowed down by the need to
>normalise their vectors for lighting. Most of the rest of the code is
>either handled by special rasterisers, or is insignificant in the
>larger scheme of things. However they used to crawl about the screen
>unless you pulled all the layers of indirection and gift-wrapping and
>bounds checking away.
As someone once asked on a newsgroup that I follow, "How fast do
you want your wrong answers?"
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d742049-31f6-4eb6-8832-9cce3f25091d@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6071 |
On 11 Jul., 16:58, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:47:25 -0700 (PDT), tm <thomas.mer...@gmx.at> > wrote: > > [snip] > > >In other words: A missing hardware feature: > > > Trigger interupt when overflow flag is set. > > >Causes compilers and JVMs to omit overflow checks. > > No, it does not. Coupled with the idea of speed at all costs, > yes. > > I think the safe option should be on by default. If you really > need the speed, then you can make the decision to override. > > Most of the time, the speed is not required. I will take > slightly slower, correct results over fast, possibly wrong results. It is not always necessary to pay for correct results with a slowdown. Correct results can be computed without any slowdown, when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt. A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs. Computations without overflow would run at full speed. Greetings Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kmvm17dgnsqd7u6uuclcpi179apsnkgp73@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6087 |
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:54:22 -0700 (PDT), tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at>
wrote:
>On 11 Jul., 16:58, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Most of the time, the speed is not required. I will take
>> slightly slower, correct results over fast, possibly wrong results.
>
>It is not always necessary to pay for correct results
>with a slowdown.
This is not a surprise to me. If there is a slowdown, I am often
willing to pay that cost.
>Correct results can be computed without any slowdown,
>when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt.
Even if the CPU does not have this facility, I still want correct
answers.
>A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs.
>Computations without overflow would run at full speed.
Even more reason to not avoid such checking.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 21:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivg9cp$akq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6087 |
On 7/11/2011 5:54 PM, tm wrote:
>[...]
> Correct results can be computed without any slowdown,
> when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt.
>
> A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs.
> Computations without overflow would run at full speed.
Well, no. At least, not in any trap-capable architecture I've
seen. Three points:
1) Even the non-trap isn't entirely free: There's some logic in
the execution pipeline that decides not to raise it. The silicon
devoted to that logic might instead have been devoted to one more
slot in a CPU-internal cache or something, so its mere presence slows
down the CPU even if it's never exercised.
2) In mode-bit styles, the maintenance of the mode bit carries
a cost. You've got to set or clear it before some computation, and
restore it afterward, and the instructions to do so aren't free. In
the machine I mentioned earlier, the mode bit was in a "Program Status
Word" that was mostly off-limits to user-level code; IIRC you had to
call an O/S service to fiddle with the bit. (It's been a long time and
maybe I don't RC, but if there were special instructions to manipulate
the privilege-insensitive parts of the PSW, see point (3) below.)
3) In ISA styles (different instructions to wrap or trap), you
double the "decode space" for the instructions of interest. That is,
the arithmetic instructions need to devote a bit to wrap/trap, and the
bit therefore becomes unavailable for other purposes. This means that
some otherwise desirable instructions will be absent from the ISA, and
that programs desiring those operations will perforce execute multiple
instructions instead of just one.
These effects are all small (I think). But in an environment where
a 3.63GHz part gets bragging rights over a mere 3.59GHz, I don't think
"full speed" is entirely accurate. It's sort of like those car ads:
"Best highway mileage *in its class*."
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 21:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08jn17t10eb6qgfdlvriqq8j6e17k5u2ou@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6095 |
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:51:28 -0400, Eric Sosman
<esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/11/2011 5:54 PM, tm wrote:
>>[...]
>> Correct results can be computed without any slowdown,
>> when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt.
>>
>> A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs.
>> Computations without overflow would run at full speed.
>
> Well, no. At least, not in any trap-capable architecture I've
>seen. Three points:
[snipped nice explanation]
How about an example of such an architecture? A URL would be
fine. I believe that /370 had something like that for floating point,
but not for integer.
> These effects are all small (I think). But in an environment where
>a 3.63GHz part gets bragging rights over a mere 3.59GHz, I don't think
>"full speed" is entirely accurate. It's sort of like those car ads:
>"Best highway mileage *in its class*."
I never did understand that phrase. With your post, I imagine
private, car obedience classes. Every car is the best in its class.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0022331b-d3c2-4e8b-b754-58730872ee5a@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6098 |
On Jul 12, 7:31 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote: > > > These effects are all small (I think). But in an environment where > >a 3.63GHz part gets bragging rights over a mere 3.59GHz, I don't think > >"full speed" is entirely accurate. It's sort of like those car ads: > >"Best highway mileage *in its class*." > > I never did understand that phrase. With your post, I imagine > private, car obedience classes. Every car is the best in its class. > A dinky little hatchback will do lots of miles per gallon. However it's not very practical if you regularly take four adults on long journeys. A saloon car might be the most efficient saloon car, so the best in its class, and the best choice for someone looking for good mileage but with other constraints. -- Lots of C programming goodies on my website http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 06:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivh7kc$p1j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6098 |
On 07/12/2011 12:31 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:51:28 -0400, Eric Sosman > <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > >> On 7/11/2011 5:54 PM, tm wrote: >>> [...] >>> Correct results can be computed without any slowdown, >>> when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt. >>> >>> A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs. >>> Computations without overflow would run at full speed. >> >> Well, no. At least, not in any trap-capable architecture I've >> seen. Three points: > > [snipped nice explanation] > > How about an example of such an architecture? A URL would be > fine. I believe that /370 had something like that for floating point, > but not for integer. > >> These effects are all small (I think). But in an environment where >> a 3.63GHz part gets bragging rights over a mere 3.59GHz, I don't think >> "full speed" is entirely accurate. It's sort of like those car ads: >> "Best highway mileage *in its class*." > > I never did understand that phrase. With your post, I imagine > private, car obedience classes. Every car is the best in its class. [OT]The idea is borrowed from the concept of weight classes in the barbaric "sport" of boxing. An SUV and a sub-compact car are designed to carry very different loads; if you actually need the extra cargo/passenger capacity of the SUV, a sub-compact with much better gas mileage won't do you any good. However, I don't think that's the complete explanation for all the single-passenger SUVs I see every day while driving to and from work.[/OT] -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-24 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <32kp27hs1qqcvmdcs9ol4cqg9ge7e4q2u7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6098 |
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:31:11 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:51:28 -0400, Eric Sosman > <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: > > >On 7/11/2011 5:54 PM, tm wrote: > >>[...] > >> Correct results can be computed without any slowdown, > >> when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt. > >> > >> A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs. > >> Computations without overflow would run at full speed. > > > > Well, no. At least, not in any trap-capable architecture I've > >seen. Three points: > > [snipped nice explanation] > > How about an example of such an architecture? A URL would be > fine. I believe that /370 had something like that for floating point, > but not for integer. > S/360 and all successors have masked interrupts for overflows in 'fixed-point' (integer) and decimal (BCD), and unmasked for (original) floating-point now retronymed 'hex' floating-point. Since IIRC S/390 there is also 'binary' (IEEE) floating-point with its own separate and more complicated status flags, masks and interrupt causes. I can't find a usable ref on the IBM site, but if you trust bitsavers: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/princOps/A22-6821-0_360PrincOps.pdf page 16 figs 14 and 16, and pp 25 and 33, 35 and 39, 42 and 49. A few high(er)-performance models of 360, and IIRC 370, did make FP traps 'imprecise' = not synchronous with the 'right' instruction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-25 10:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d0fXp.16796$wc1.14117@newsfe04.iad> |
| In reply to | #6521 |
On July 24, 2011 22:13, in comp.lang.c, dave.thompson2@verizon.net wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:31:11 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:51:28 -0400, Eric Sosman >> <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> wrote: >> >> >On 7/11/2011 5:54 PM, tm wrote: >> >>[...] >> >> Correct results can be computed without any slowdown, >> >> when the CPU is able to trigger an overflow interupt. >> >> >> >> A slowdown would only happen when an overflow occurs. >> >> Computations without overflow would run at full speed. >> > >> > Well, no. At least, not in any trap-capable architecture I've >> >seen. Three points: >> >> [snipped nice explanation] >> >> How about an example of such an architecture? A URL would be >> fine. I believe that /370 had something like that for floating point, >> but not for integer. >> > S/360 and all successors have masked interrupts for overflows in > 'fixed-point' (integer) and decimal (BCD), and unmasked for (original) > floating-point now retronymed 'hex' floating-point. Since IIRC S/390 > there is also 'binary' (IEEE) floating-point with its own separate and > more complicated status flags, masks and interrupt causes. > > I can't find a usable ref on the IBM site, You probably want IBM's documentation site. Here's a link to z/Architecture Principles of Operations http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr/download/DZ9ZR006.pdf?DT=20080213005418&XKS=dz9zbk08 You want page 6-14 and after for "Program Interruption"; the various Data Exceptions are documented there, including fixed, floating point, and IEEE floating point data exceptions. HTH -- Lew Pitcher Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training | Registered Linux User #112576 Me: http://pitcher.digitalfreehold.ca/ | Just Linux: http://justlinux.ca/ ---------- Slackware - Because I know what I'm doing. ------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 09:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e1bf1bc$0$15671$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #6029 |
"tm" <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3797038f-22d1-40b2-8c12-60db5a0976b8@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Jul., 05:04, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >> On 7/7/2011 5:51 PM, Peter Duniho wrote: >> ... >> >> > I would not worry about the "simple" or "efficient" criteria. IMHO, if >> > one is deciding to apply overflow checking to every computation, one has >> > already abandoned the hope of efficiency. >> >> Not necessarily. I assumed a couple of decades ago that array index >> checking would be impossibly inefficient, but it seems to work fine in >> Java. > > And in other languages, like Pascal, Ada and Seed7, as well. > >> I suspect that having integer range types would be a major help. >> When I'm working out whether an int can overflow, I often think in terms >> of the ranges of inputs to calculations. A compiler would be able to >> tell that adding a digit to a digit always fits in the range [0,18]. > > I think there are two things: > > 1. range checks (like value fits in [0,18]). > 2. check if an 32-bit (or 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit, ...) > computation overflows. the carry flag for 2^n word is ok for detect overflow
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 02:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7b7711c-93d5-477e-a470-21386854ff6f@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6102 |
On 12 Jul., 09:05, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > "tm" <thomas.mer...@gmx.at> ha scritto nel messaggionews:3797038f-22d1-40b2-8c12-60db5a0976b8@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 8 Jul., 05:04, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > >> On 7/7/2011 5:51 PM, Peter Duniho wrote: > >> ... > > >> > I would not worry about the "simple" or "efficient" criteria. IMHO, if > >> > one is deciding to apply overflow checking to every computation, one has > >> > already abandoned the hope of efficiency. > > >> Not necessarily. I assumed a couple of decades ago that array index > >> checking would be impossibly inefficient, but it seems to work fine in > >> Java. > > > And in other languages, like Pascal, Ada and Seed7, as well. > > >> I suspect that having integer range types would be a major help. > >> When I'm working out whether an int can overflow, I often think in terms > >> of the ranges of inputs to calculations. A compiler would be able to > >> tell that adding a digit to a digit always fits in the range [0,18]. > > > I think there are two things: > > > 1. range checks (like value fits in [0,18]). > > 2. check if an 32-bit (or 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit, ...) > > computation overflows. > > the carry flag for 2^n word is ok for detect overflow Yes, but it must be checked after every operation. A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this extra checks. Unchecked signed integer operations are used, because of performance reasons. Many people don't care about correct results, as long as they have maximum performance. With hardware support there would be no performance loss. So there would be no excuse to accept wrong results. Greetings Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 11:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e1c149b$0$15663$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #6105 |
"tm" <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> ha scritto nel messaggio news:e7b7711c-93d5-477e-a470-21386854ff6f@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On 12 Jul., 09:05, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > > I think there are two things: > > > 1. range checks (like value fits in [0,18]). > > 2. check if an 32-bit (or 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit, ...) > > computation overflows. > > the carry flag for 2^n word is ok for detect overflow >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. #but the checks can be done one time for all, in the input #data for the function for impose arg has to be in a #numeric range good for not overflow
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26b58d46-d638-4a6c-bd5e-97b809ab5907@gh5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6106 |
On Jul 12, 12:34 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > > #but the checks can be done one time for all, in the input > #data for the function for impose arg has to be in a > #numeric range good for not overflow > It's too fiddly, at least in C. You can overflow check if you really have to, but it's not a viable strategy to insert checking code for every single arithmetical operation that could conceivably overflow. You need a different language for that. -- Check out MiniBasic http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 03:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c75a0644-b939-40f2-a471-9b084bba0aa9@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #6106 |
On 12 Jul., 11:34, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > "tm" <thomas.mer...@gmx.at> ha scritto nel messaggionews:e7b7711c-93d5-477e-a470-21386854ff6f@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Jul., 09:05, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > > > > I think there are two things: > > > > 1. range checks (like value fits in [0,18]). > > > 2. check if an 32-bit (or 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit, ...) > > > computation overflows. > > > the carry flag for 2^n word is ok for detect overflow > >Yes, but it must be checked after every operation. > >A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this > >extra checks. > > #if hardware 'triggers' an interrupt all you lost the prog > #or lost the control of the program; and this is not good. Why should the control of the program be lost? A hardware interrupt can cause an signal or an exception. So the program can handle the signal or handle the exception. On many CPUs a division by zero triggers also an interrupt. Depending on the language a signal or an exception allows the program to stay in control. Of cause such things are done by the runtime library in cooperation with the OS. Greetings Thomas Mertes -- Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements and operators, abstract data types, templates without special syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 08:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a7XSp.65579$8G4.36986@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #6106 |
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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 13:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e1c2d07$0$15665$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #6105 |
"tm" <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> ha scritto nel messaggio news:e7b7711c-93d5-477e-a470-21386854ff6f@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > I think there are two things: > > > 1. range checks (like value fits in [0,18]). > > 2. check if an 32-bit (or 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit, ...) > > computation overflows. there is anhother one, the one i think could be right 3. consider operation on varible saturantion for example here unsigned are 32 bits range 0..0FFFFFFFFh than consider to each operation overflow saturate its variable for example unsigned32bitsSpecial a; a=9; a+=0xFFFFFFFA; ; here 'a' has value 0FFFFFFFFh because += overflow 'a'; it is as double in the standard C that has +INF so allowed range of not overflow 32Bit variable are 0..0xFFFFFFFE varible in overflow or +INF is 0xFFFFFFFF so if a=INF if b,c,r,m are saturabile variables b+=a, c-=a r/=a m*=a all overflow b,c,r,m and at end b==c==r==m==INF etc etc > the carry flag for 2^n word is ok for detect overflow >Yes, but it must be checked after every operation. >A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this >extra checks. >Unchecked signed integer operations i refer only to unsigned, not negative number. i never use it [saturate variables] i like carry flag and check for overflow too disclaimer: i can wrong on all this i'm just an hobby programmer > are used, because of >performance reasons. Many people don't care about correct >results, as long as they have maximum performance. >With >hardware support there would be no performance loss. So >there would be no excuse to accept wrong results. >Greetings Thomas Mertes >-- >Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net >Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements >and operators, abstract data types, templates without special >syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed, interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <s15p17t8vlv6sd9jknplh1eknmq7jnsgts@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6105 |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:22:41 -0700 (PDT), tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at>
wrote:
[snip]
>Yes, but it must be checked after every operation.
>A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this
>extra checks.
No, it would not. The check would simply be implemented in
hardware. It will still take time.
>Unchecked signed integer operations are used, because of
>performance reasons. Many people don't care about correct
That is often what is stated, but rarely is there a benchmark
done to prove that the system would otherwise be too slow.
>results, as long as they have maximum performance. With
Ha! They might not see the errors. If they do, expect to hear
about it.
>hardware support there would be no performance loss. So
>there would be no excuse to accept wrong results.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jOSdnUKE6ZMiP4HTnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #6129 |
On 7/12/2011 11:39 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 02:22:41 -0700 (PDT), tm<thomas.mertes@gmx.at> > wrote: > > [snip] > >> Yes, but it must be checked after every operation. >> A hardware that triggers an interrupt, would save this >> extra checks. > > No, it would not. The check would simply be implemented in > hardware. It will still take time. It would not necessarily directly take time. It could be done in parallel with the stage that writes results back to register files, or bypasses them to other instructions. As has already been pointed out, there may be a tiny performance cost because the space taken by the check logic might have been used for something else. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iviaa2$52u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6130 |
On 7/12/2011 12:38 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > It would not necessarily directly take time. It could be done in > parallel with the stage that writes results back to register files, or > bypasses them to other instructions. A JO almost certainly would be executed in parallel with the ADD instruction. Executing two instructions in parallel has been available on consumer CPU (x86) since about 1992. It's two decade old technology. Folks complaining about performance degradation due to overflow detection are frankly greatly out of date in their understanding of CPU architecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36bp17tf79bhbd6hovf9srhmcs1jh1c040@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #6131 |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:20:15 -0700, markspace <-@.> wrote:
>On 7/12/2011 12:38 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> It would not necessarily directly take time. It could be done in
>> parallel with the stage that writes results back to register files, or
>> bypasses them to other instructions.
>
>
>A JO almost certainly would be executed in parallel with the ADD
>instruction. Executing two instructions in parallel has been available
>on consumer CPU (x86) since about 1992. It's two decade old technology.
> Folks complaining about performance degradation due to overflow
>detection are frankly greatly out of date in their understanding of CPU
>architecture.
I also suggest that they build a time machine and go for a ride
on a certain Ariane 5 launch.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web