Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55959
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| References | <788f5318-e6c4-499d-838a-89c45a917142@googlegroups.com> <cuidnTwS4ZVdSVPFnZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@supernews.com> <oan2oo$re9$3@dont-email.me> |
| Message-ID | <7-Kdnc0K7-nnBVLFnZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2017-03-20 03:53 -0500 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/19/2017 2:58 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> In two's complement representation, for every pair of arguments, >> signed or unsigned, the resulting bit pattern is correct when >> interpreted as either signed or unsigned. This follows because signed >> and unsigned addition don't need special handling, and multiplication >> is no more than repeated addition. > > Try it sometime. A multiplication routine doing shift and add of the > multiplicand using the bits in the multiplier as enable flags does not > work for a negative multiplier. If your statement were correct, it > should work regardless. Instead the multiplier has to be negated along > with the result. Please provide an example of a pair of numbers which demonstrates this. Andrew.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-19 10:41 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-19 13:58 -0500
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-19 19:06 -0400
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-20 03:53 -0500
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 06:56 -0400
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-20 07:53 -0500
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 18:15 -0400
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 23:30 +0100
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-20 15:34 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-20 14:40 -1000
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 19:41 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-21 17:18 +0000
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-20 15:07 +0000
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 12:32 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-19 13:54 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-19 21:21 +0100
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-19 16:41 -0700
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-21 17:56 +0000
Re: n00b confusion regarding the implementation vs. specification of * anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-20 08:57 +0000
csiph-web