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 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 00:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv615a$e1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5976 |
On 7/7/2011 8:51 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.
I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," in
the sense that it was done by the hardware/firmware/microcode, just
like setting condition flags.
Flipping the mode bit that enabled or disabled traps for integer
arithmetic was relatively expensive, so programs tended to set it
one way or the other during initialization and then just leave it
alone. But it's not necessary to use a global bit to get this kind
of behavior: an instruction set might feature both an AddAndWrap and
an AddAndTrap instruction. True, that's not entirely free -- you
pay for extra decoding logic in the instruction pipeline, for example.
But the inefficiencies don't rise to the "abandon hope" level, IMHO.
Besides: What are the relative efficiencies of an error caught
and announced versus a wrong answer computed at great speed without
any indication that it's wrong?
(The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago and might
be dismissed as ancientry, but their lineal descendants are still
being made and sold. I don't know how today's editions deal with
overflow, but if you're curious you can write to the vendor. Their
headquarters are in Armonk, NY.)
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 01:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <obOdndFxGbt9IovTnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> |
| In reply to | #5979 |
On 7/7/11 9:30 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. > > I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," in > the sense that it was done by the hardware/firmware/microcode, just > like setting condition flags. > > Flipping the mode bit that enabled or disabled traps for integer > arithmetic was relatively expensive, so programs tended to set it > one way or the other during initialization and then just leave it > alone. But it's not necessary to use a global bit to get this kind > of behavior: an instruction set might feature both an AddAndWrap and > an AddAndTrap instruction. True, that's not entirely free -- you > pay for extra decoding logic in the instruction pipeline, for example. > But the inefficiencies don't rise to the "abandon hope" level, IMHO. AFAIK, mainstream hardware (e.g. x86-compatible) doesn't include special overflow-checking instructions as you're describing. I agree it's theoretically possible, but without such instructions in actual hardware, one is left toggling global state around every place that involves a change in whether overflow is checked or not. Maybe some of the other more common CPUs, such as PowerPC, SHx, ARM, etc. do include those instructions. I don't know off the top of my head. But targeting a specific CPU would still require JVM and/or bytecode support. These are hypothetical solutions, even more hypothetical than the actual question. :) (In case it's not clear, I should emphasize that my comments are in the context of the stated question…that is, assuming Java as it is today, and potential solutions given the stated requirement). > Besides: What are the relative efficiencies of an error caught > and announced versus a wrong answer computed at great speed without > any indication that it's wrong? You'll get no argument from me there. I'm a strong proponent of correct code over incorrect fast code, and even of correct, _maintainable_ code over correct fast code (at least prior to detailed performance analysis). In fact, my main point was that given the stated requirement, worrying about efficiency becomes beside the point. If you have a business need for having every computation checked for overflow, then you have that need, whether or not it can be done efficiently. If one can find an efficient solution, great. But I think given what the OP has to work with, that's not likely. More important just to get _some_ working solution (assuming it's a real requirement…as I mentioned, I suspect it's not as hard-and-fast as the original question seems to imply). Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iv74oo$hql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5985 |
On 7/8/2011 1:29 AM, Peter Duniho wrote: > AFAIK, mainstream hardware (e.g. x86-compatible) doesn't include special > overflow-checking instructions as you're describing. I agree it's Er, x86 and i32/64 certainly does. I just happen to be browsing their hardware architecture documents last weak. Not a single instruction to AddWithTrap, but a it does have a global state register, and a test/branch instrution, so you just pair up an ADD followed by a JO (Jump if Overflow) and that's it. Two easy instructions paired together, and it works the same for MUL and SUB too. (DIV can't overflow; think about it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 20:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv8818$j0f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5986 |
On 7/8/2011 10:38 AM, markspace wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 1:29 AM, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, mainstream hardware (e.g. x86-compatible) doesn't include special
>> overflow-checking instructions as you're describing. I agree it's
>
> Er, x86 and i32/64 certainly does. I just happen to be browsing their
> hardware architecture documents last weak.
>
> Not a single instruction to AddWithTrap, but a it does have a global
> state register, and a test/branch instrution, so you just pair up an ADD
> followed by a JO (Jump if Overflow) and that's it. Two easy instructions
> paired together, and it works the same for MUL and SUB too. (DIV can't
> overflow; think about it).
I Am Curious, Ultraviolet: Even for Integer.MIN_VALUE / -1?
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iv8a6s$tln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6002 |
On 7/8/2011 5:40 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: >> Not a single instruction to AddWithTrap, but a it does have a global >> state register, and a test/branch instrution, so you just pair up an ADD >> followed by a JO (Jump if Overflow) and that's it. Two easy instructions >> paired together, and it works the same for MUL and SUB too. (DIV can't >> overflow; think about it). > > I Am Curious, Ultraviolet: Even for Integer.MIN_VALUE / -1? Hmm, that was the description I read in the docs, or thought I read. I'm not really sure what the hardware will do in that case. One way to find out would be to try it. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <UrOdnTOySoU6XIrTnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> |
| In reply to | #6004 |
On 7/8/11 6:17 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 5:40 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>>> Not a single instruction to AddWithTrap, but a it does have a global
>>> state register, and a test/branch instrution, so you just pair up an ADD
>>> followed by a JO (Jump if Overflow) and that's it. Two easy instructions
>>> paired together, and it works the same for MUL and SUB too. (DIV can't
>>> overflow; think about it).
>>
>> I Am Curious, Ultraviolet: Even for Integer.MIN_VALUE / -1?
>
>
> Hmm, that was the description I read in the docs, or thought I read. I'm
> not really sure what the hardware will do in that case. One way to find
> out would be to try it. :)
It had better trigger the same overflow as for other arithmetic
operations. And in C# (which is using the hardware features), it does:
using System;
namespace TestDivOverflow
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
checked
{
int i = int.MinValue, j = i / -1;
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
}
}
}
Output:
Arithmetic operation resulted in an overflow.
Note that .NET is taking advantage of the hardware exception; it doesn't
have to check the overflow bit, because the CPU generates an interrupt
when the overflow occurs, when set up properly. Here's the
(unoptimized) assembly for the line of code in the "checked" block:
00000041 mov dword ptr [ebp-40h],80000000h
00000048 mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-40h]
0000004b or ecx,0FFFFFFFFh
0000004e cdq
0000004f idiv eax,ecx
00000051 mov dword ptr [ebp-44h],eax
Java _could_ do the same, but of course you'd have to, one way or the
other, wrap "checked" areas of code with the toggle of the
interrupt-trapping so that only those areas of code you want to generate
the overflow check actually get it.
Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <iv8oq5$94j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6005 |
On 7/8/2011 7:49 PM, Peter Duniho wrote: > the CPU generates an interrupt > when the overflow occurs, Ah, ok that's why I read that the DIV instruction didn't affect the OV bit--it uses a different mechanism. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <x8SdnR4--r9uPorTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> |
| In reply to | #5986 |
On 7/8/11 7:38 AM, markspace wrote: > On 7/8/2011 1:29 AM, Peter Duniho wrote: > >> AFAIK, mainstream hardware (e.g. x86-compatible) doesn't include special >> overflow-checking instructions as you're describing. I agree it's > > Er, x86 and i32/64 certainly does. I just happen to be browsing their > hardware architecture documents last weak. > > Not a single instruction to AddWithTrap, but a it does have a global > state register, and a test/branch instrution, so you just pair up an ADD > followed by a JO (Jump if Overflow) and that's it. Two easy instructions > paired together, and it works the same for MUL and SUB too. (DIV can't > overflow; think about it). Go back and read what you're replying to. The context is _specifically_ about "a single instruction to AddWithTrap". x86 and lots of other hardware has the global state you're talking about. But that's not what we're talking about. Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-09 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107091021260.32399@urchin.earth.li> |
| In reply to | #5979 |
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. > > I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," in > the sense that it was done by the hardware/firmware/microcode, just > like setting condition flags. > > Flipping the mode bit that enabled or disabled traps for integer > arithmetic was relatively expensive, so programs tended to set it > one way or the other during initialization and then just leave it > alone. But it's not necessary to use a global bit to get this kind > of behavior: an instruction set might feature both an AddAndWrap and > an AddAndTrap instruction. True, that's not entirely free -- you > pay for extra decoding logic in the instruction pipeline, for example. > But the inefficiencies don't rise to the "abandon hope" level, IMHO. > > Besides: What are the relative efficiencies of an error caught > and announced versus a wrong answer computed at great speed without > any indication that it's wrong? > > (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago and might be > dismissed as ancientry, but their lineal descendants are still being > made and sold. I don't know how today's editions deal with overflow, > but if you're curious you can write to the vendor. Their headquarters > are in Armonk, NY.) In that case, i can tell you what they do: charge you extra for it. tom -- ONE IN EIGHT GO MAD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 10:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u1jSp.46510$5v5.12707@newsfe11.iad> |
| In reply to | #5979 |
On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 7/7/2011 8:51 PM, Peter Duniho wrote: >> [...] >> I would not worry about the "simple" or "efficient" criteria. IMHO, if >> one is deciding to apply overflow checking to every computation, one has >> already abandoned the hope of efficiency. > > I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," ... > (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of old-timey hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware design. When operating systems for computers based on said processors came out, a lot of old-timey software folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of operating system design. We seem to still be suffering the consequences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ivcpp9$jme$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #6048 |
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: > On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >> >> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," > ... >> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago > > When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of old-timey > hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware design. When > operating systems for computers based on said processors came out, a lot > of old-timey software folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of operating > system design. We seem to still be suffering the consequences. That happened not once, but twice. The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the likes of the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS reminiscent of early computers, except they generally had teletypes instead of banks of switches and flashing lights. By then the better mainframes were multi- user, multitasking beasts. Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this time the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros had re- implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit a copy of the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the earliest micros even had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI 8080). By 1980 the minis were running UNIX but the latest and greatest micros had - drumroll - MS- DOS! -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1K2dnVVEK60FcoTTnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #6054 |
On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: > >> On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >>> >>> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," >> ... >>> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago >> >> When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of old-timey >> hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware design. When >> operating systems for computers based on said processors came out, a lot >> of old-timey software folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of operating >> system design. We seem to still be suffering the consequences. > > That happened not once, but twice. > > The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the likes of > the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS reminiscent of > early computers, except they generally had teletypes instead of banks of > switches and flashing lights. By then the better mainframes were multi- > user, multitasking beasts. > > Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this time > the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros had re- > implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit a copy of > the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the earliest micros even > had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI 8080). By 1980 the minis > were running UNIX but the latest and greatest micros had - drumroll - MS- > DOS! > > Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 19:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ivcu5f$kvm$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #6055 |
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:29:39 -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: >> >>> On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>>> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >>>> >>>> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," >>> ... >>>> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago >>> >>> When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of >>> old-timey hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware >>> design. When operating systems for computers based on said processors >>> came out, a lot of old-timey software folks said they'd forgotten 30+ >>> years of operating system design. We seem to still be suffering the >>> consequences. >> >> That happened not once, but twice. >> >> The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the likes >> of the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS reminiscent >> of early computers, except they generally had teletypes instead of >> banks of switches and flashing lights. By then the better mainframes >> were multi- user, multitasking beasts. >> >> Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this >> time the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros >> had re- implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit a >> copy of the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the earliest >> micros even had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI 8080). By >> 1980 the minis were running UNIX but the latest and greatest micros had >> - drumroll - MS- DOS! >> >> >> > Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great > advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! > They don't count since, unlike minis and micros, their builders didn't retreat to the techno-stone age, ignore progress made to date, and build primitive OS by rubbing (metaphorical) sticks together. AFAIK all smartphones started an a more advanced level because they inherited better operating systems. IIRC these all originated on electronic memo pads such as Psion, HP and Palm Pilot made, and were all a lot more advanced than the likes of RSTS, CP/M, Flex09, etc. Leastwise, I don't think you can consider Symbian and whatever MS was calling the iPAQ OS at that stage any more primitive than the contemporary versions of MacOS, OS/2 or even Windows, though admittedly they were rather behind UNIX and its distant relations such as OS-9/68K. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-21 16:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4e288eaa$0$316$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #6058 |
On 7/10/2011 3:22 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:29:39 -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > >> On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: >>> >>>> On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>>>> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >>>>> >>>>> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," >>>> ... >>>>> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago >>>> >>>> When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of >>>> old-timey hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware >>>> design. When operating systems for computers based on said processors >>>> came out, a lot of old-timey software folks said they'd forgotten 30+ >>>> years of operating system design. We seem to still be suffering the >>>> consequences. >>> >>> That happened not once, but twice. >>> >>> The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the likes >>> of the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS reminiscent >>> of early computers, except they generally had teletypes instead of >>> banks of switches and flashing lights. By then the better mainframes >>> were multi- user, multitasking beasts. >>> >>> Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this >>> time the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros >>> had re- implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit a >>> copy of the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the earliest >>> micros even had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI 8080). By >>> 1980 the minis were running UNIX but the latest and greatest micros had >>> - drumroll - MS- DOS! >>> >>> >>> >> Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great >> advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! >> > They don't count since, unlike minis and micros, their builders didn't > retreat to the techno-stone age, ignore progress made to date, and build > primitive OS by rubbing (metaphorical) sticks together. > > AFAIK all smartphones started an a more advanced level because they > inherited better operating systems. IIRC these all originated on > electronic memo pads such as Psion, HP and Palm Pilot made, and were all > a lot more advanced than the likes of RSTS, CP/M, Flex09, etc. Leastwise, > I don't think you can consider Symbian and whatever MS was calling the > iPAQ OS at that stage any more primitive than the contemporary versions > of MacOS, OS/2 or even Windows, though admittedly they were rather behind > UNIX and its distant relations such as OS-9/68K. If they don't support multi-tasking I would say that they in at least one aspect is behind the desktop OS'es. (how important multitasking is on a smartphone is a different discussion) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-21 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j0abdu$iem$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #6349 |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:40:08 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 7/10/2011 3:22 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:29:39 -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> >>> On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>>>>> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," >>>>> ... >>>>>> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago >>>>> >>>>> When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of >>>>> old-timey hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware >>>>> design. When operating systems for computers based on said >>>>> processors came out, a lot of old-timey software folks said they'd >>>>> forgotten 30+ years of operating system design. We seem to still be >>>>> suffering the consequences. >>>> >>>> That happened not once, but twice. >>>> >>>> The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the >>>> likes of the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS >>>> reminiscent of early computers, except they generally had teletypes >>>> instead of banks of switches and flashing lights. By then the better >>>> mainframes were multi- user, multitasking beasts. >>>> >>>> Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this >>>> time the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros >>>> had re- implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit >>>> a copy of the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the >>>> earliest micros even had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI >>>> 8080). By 1980 the minis were running UNIX but the latest and >>>> greatest micros had - drumroll - MS- DOS! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great >>> advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! >>> >> They don't count since, unlike minis and micros, their builders didn't >> retreat to the techno-stone age, ignore progress made to date, and >> build primitive OS by rubbing (metaphorical) sticks together. >> >> AFAIK all smartphones started an a more advanced level because they >> inherited better operating systems. IIRC these all originated on >> electronic memo pads such as Psion, HP and Palm Pilot made, and were >> all a lot more advanced than the likes of RSTS, CP/M, Flex09, etc. >> Leastwise, I don't think you can consider Symbian and whatever MS was >> calling the iPAQ OS at that stage any more primitive than the >> contemporary versions of MacOS, OS/2 or even Windows, though admittedly >> they were rather behind UNIX and its distant relations such as >> OS-9/68K. > > If they don't support multi-tasking I would say that they in at least > one aspect is behind the desktop OS'es. > Well, the OSen I quoted RSTS, CP/M, Flex09 and contemporaries on small minicomputers and early microcomputers, are all single tasking, and all had worse display handling than the smartphone OSen, because they all were basically green screen 24x80 systems. In my mind the improved graphical interfaces of the early smartphones (and even on the Palm Pilots) puts the latter ahead on points, and if any are multitasking then they're streets ahead. IIRC first small and cheap multitasking OSes were: - Microware's OS/9 in 1981, so precedes even the PC/DOS incarnation of MS/DOS and would support multiple users on a 64K 6809 box - TSC's uniFlex also ran on SWTPc 6809 boxes. Similar capability to OS/9 but not nearly as flexible or portable as OS/9 - SCO UNIX was also running on 8086 hardware around the same time - multi-user operation on around 128 KB RAM I think All of these appeared around the same time and all supported simultaneous multiple users with 24x80 green screens terminals such as VT100, Hazeltine, Beehive, etc. I think Wyse were later but I could be wrong. > (how important multitasking is on a smartphone is a different > discussion) > Agreed: apart from anything else you'd have problems using more than one interactive app at a time on those tiny screens. In fact those early smart phones had to have some rudimentary multitasking ability, at least equivalent to what the early Macs could do, or the phone couldn't accept an incoming call if its owner was using an app. Palm Pilots were and are extremely useful despite having no multitasking ability whatever. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-21 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4e28b87b$0$315$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #6377 |
On 7/21/2011 7:06 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:40:08 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > >> On 7/10/2011 3:22 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:29:39 -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:53:09 -0400, David Lamb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 08/07/2011 12:30 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/7/2011 8:51 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've used machines that raised overflow traps "for free," >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> (The machines I speak of were from forty-odd years ago >>>>>> >>>>>> When microprocessors started to arrive on the scene, a lot of >>>>>> old-timey hardware folks said they'd forgotten 30+ years of hardware >>>>>> design. When operating systems for computers based on said >>>>>> processors came out, a lot of old-timey software folks said they'd >>>>>> forgotten 30+ years of operating system design. We seem to still be >>>>>> suffering the consequences. >>>>> >>>>> That happened not once, but twice. >>>>> >>>>> The first great leap backward was the minicomputer era, when the >>>>> likes of the PDP-8 arrived with a single user, single tasking OS >>>>> reminiscent of early computers, except they generally had teletypes >>>>> instead of banks of switches and flashing lights. By then the better >>>>> mainframes were multi- user, multitasking beasts. >>>>> >>>>> Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this >>>>> time the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros >>>>> had re- implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit >>>>> a copy of the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the >>>>> earliest micros even had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI >>>>> 8080). By 1980 the minis were running UNIX but the latest and >>>>> greatest micros had - drumroll - MS- DOS! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great >>>> advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! >>>> >>> They don't count since, unlike minis and micros, their builders didn't >>> retreat to the techno-stone age, ignore progress made to date, and >>> build primitive OS by rubbing (metaphorical) sticks together. >>> >>> AFAIK all smartphones started an a more advanced level because they >>> inherited better operating systems. IIRC these all originated on >>> electronic memo pads such as Psion, HP and Palm Pilot made, and were >>> all a lot more advanced than the likes of RSTS, CP/M, Flex09, etc. >>> Leastwise, I don't think you can consider Symbian and whatever MS was >>> calling the iPAQ OS at that stage any more primitive than the >>> contemporary versions of MacOS, OS/2 or even Windows, though admittedly >>> they were rather behind UNIX and its distant relations such as >>> OS-9/68K. >> >> If they don't support multi-tasking I would say that they in at least >> one aspect is behind the desktop OS'es. >> > Well, the OSen I quoted RSTS, CP/M, Flex09 and contemporaries on small > minicomputers and early microcomputers, are all single tasking, and all > had worse display handling than the smartphone OSen, because they all > were basically green screen 24x80 systems. WP7 was introduces last year without real multitasking. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henderson <h1@g1.f1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-22 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j0au75$136$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #6377 |
On 21/07/2011 7:06 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > Agreed: apart from anything else you'd have problems using more than one > interactive app at a time on those tiny screens. In fact those early > smart phones had to have some rudimentary multitasking ability, at least > equivalent to what the early Macs could do, or the phone couldn't accept > an incoming call if its owner was using an app. A lot of phone apps save their exact state when you use the phone's menu button to close them and return to the phone's menus. The effect for many users is similar to true multitasking, in that they can leave work in progress in one app, switch to another, and return to the first afterward and continue where they left off. It's just they can't have a background job grinding away while they do something else; if they have, say, something rendering an animation and switch to another app the render makes no progress when they're not in the rendering app. I think later-generation phones are starting to introduce the ability to have daemon threads. One irritation with phone apps saving their state is that they can get wedged and be difficult to unwedge. The Safari browser on the iPhone is a frequent culprit. There's an obscure reset procedure for the iPhone that involves powering it off for 15 seconds and doing some magic dance, maybe not in that order, that will reset apps to their installed states. You lose work in progress but if Safari, or another app, got b0rked it will work again. Unfortunately you can't reset just the b0rked app. There's a still more severe reset that wipes the phone to factory state; if you do that, better have synched it with your iTunes or you've lost everything on the phone, possibly including paid apps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-22 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j0bs9q$uuf$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #6394 |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 00:27:16 -0400, Henderson wrote: > A lot of phone apps save their exact state when you use the phone's menu > button to close them and return to the phone's menus. The effect for > many users is similar to true multitasking, in that they can leave work > in progress in one app, switch to another, and return to the first > afterward and continue where they left off. It's just they can't have a > background job grinding away while they do something else; if they have, > say, something rendering an animation and switch to another app the > render makes no progress when they're not in the rendering app. > That all sounds remarkably like a Palm Pilot: no multi-tasking, instant focus switch, state preserved for all tasks. > One irritation with phone apps saving their state is that they can get > wedged and be difficult to unwedge. > In that cast the Palm Pilot wins: I don't think mine, an ancient monochrome M100, has ever gotten wedged. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | markspace <-@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ivdffh$rtq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6055 |
On 7/10/2011 11:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 7/10/2011 11:07 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> Then the first microcomputers arrived in the mid/late '70s. By this time >> the better minis had multi-tasking operating systems, but micros had re- >> implemented the earliest mini OSes - CP/M was near as dammit a copy of >> the old PDP-8 OS (RSTS?) from the late 60s - and the earliest micros even >> had switches and flashing lights (KIM-1, IMSAI 8080). By 1980 the minis >> were running UNIX but the latest and greatest micros had - drumroll - MS- >> DOS! > Only twice? Aren't you forgetting "smart" phones. One of the great > advances in Android is (Drum roll!) multitasking!!! If you're counting smart phones and MS-DOS, then you have to count Apple's first MacOS, which used co-operative multi-tasking. I.e., any error by any program in the system and the whole thing would just break. This went on for nearly two decades iirc. There's probably others we should count. 8-3 filenames, case-insensitive file systems, weird mapping schemes for disc usage based on a "maximum" storage size of say about 256kB (not kidding), Apple's "innovative" data/resource fork file-scheme--I won't call it a file-system--still causing pain to this day, and any other number of "quick" or "new" kludges based on the idea of limited resources or limited time to market. All right up there with "saving" time or complexity not giving the user a choice of hardware detection for integer overflow *coughjava*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <t0fe17do5p4qslksigd5fmgbsbg7l3hk9n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #5976 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:51:06 -0700, Peter Duniho
<NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
[snip]
>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. If a rocket ends up being destroyed as a
result, having the computing go a bit slower to save having to build
another rocket would have been more efficient. Unfortunately, this is
not a made-up example. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5_Flight_501
In the subsequent investigation, the cause of the problem was
recreated.
Turn on those run-time checks unless speed *REALLY* is of
paramount importance. It usually is not.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web