Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism?

Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Date	2017-04-29 12:43 -0700
References	(1 earlier) <87o9vi6rql.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <26aee5e9-ed2f-4c6e-af68-b85418c7e641@googlegroups.com> <ln1ssdmrc5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <6175390e-9ea6-45f9-bf8c-d87525c332da@googlegroups.com> <odutnq$8kf$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<e58d2e1a-5bee-458b-a503-30244dbbf7fc@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism?
From	supercat@casperkitty.com

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 3:19:17 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> The context here is C programming unless explicitly stated otherwise,
> and in that context left-shifting a negative value is undefined.

Did C89 become off-topic?  In C89, left-shifting a negative value was
defined in a way that made sense for two's-complement systems, but was
probably less than ideal on ones'-complement platforms (an implementation
which targeted ones' complement hardware could efficiently handle code
written for two's-complement machines if it made bitwise operators on
negative numbers behave as they would for two's-complement equivalents,
but the way C89 was written required that -1<<1 yield -3 rather than -2
on ones'-complement sytems).

It would seem likely that the authors of C99 wanted to allow implementations
to process left-shifts of negative numbers in whatever fashion would make
the most sense given the target platforms and purposes.  Making the behavior
Undefined certainly has that effect.  Is there any reason to believe that
it was intended to invite implementations where exactly one behavior would
make sense, to arbitrarily select other nonsensical behaviors instead?

BTW, I find it ironic that C99 went out of its way to acommodate sign-
magnitude and ones'-complement implementations, but then impose other
requirements that make it impractical to implement on such machines (are
there *any* conforming C99-or-later compilers for actual ones'-complement
hardware?  Do they use 64-bit or larger word size, or do they somehow do
multi-word math in base 2)?

For that matter, does anyone know if the Univac 36-bit ones'-complement
system which has a 71-bit signed long long but no unsigned long long,
actually uses a pure binary notation for its signed long long type?  I
would expect it would be much more efficient to use a type with a base of
2^36-1.  If integers wrap mod that base, then given:

    int v1h,v2h, resh;
    nativeUnsigned v1l,v2l, resl; // Wrap mod 2^36-1 rather than mod 2^36

the sum could be computed, even without any "carry-flag" feature, via:

    resultlower = v1l+v2l;
    resultUpper = (v1l ^ v2l ^ resultLower) & 1 + v1h + v2h;

C99's requirement that all numbers use a pure binary representation would
forbid such an approach, however.  I'm not sure exactly what hoops the
implementation had to jump through to achieve mod-2^36 unsigned arithmetic,
but I would expect it to make math on base-2^36 types much more expensive.
I don't know the Univac's instruction set, but would expect the above would
translate very straightforwardly into machine code with no branching; I
would expect code for unsigned long long to be a lot more complicated.

Thread

Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:13 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:41 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-27 11:59 +0100
    Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 14:35 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 15:13 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:58 +0200
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 16:44 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:04 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 08:53 +0200
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:23 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-28 18:05 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 09:22 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 12:24 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 00:03 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 16:37 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:09 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 17:34 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 01:43 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 02:04 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:46 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 12:05 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:33 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 17:58 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 09:13 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 12:55 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 09:17 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 20:35 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:39 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:21 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:35 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 16:29 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 20:58 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:43 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 14:09 +0100
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 14:23 +0000
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 16:17 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 15:55 +0000
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 19:11 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:23 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 11:31 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 12:01 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 12:47 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:20 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 15:22 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 16:52 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 15:18 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-29 14:25 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-04-29 08:05 -0400
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 13:34 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 05:55 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:11 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:24 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:57 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 12:17 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-03 16:36 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 11:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-03 21:40 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 23:46 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:55 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:20 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:26 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:19 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:57 -0400
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 17:06 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:38 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:51 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-29 12:43 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:02 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:25 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:48 -0400
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:07 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:56 +0200
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 11:30 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:35 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:54 +0200
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 21:05 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:58 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 10:50 +0100
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 10:01 -0400
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:06 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-28 23:57 +0100
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:28 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:41 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 21:46 +0100
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 05:41 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 13:57 +0100
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:30 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 16:13 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 09:12 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 18:15 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 11:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 21:39 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 13:53 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 14:10 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 22:36 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 15:27 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 00:45 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-03 11:57 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 13:34 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:05 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:58 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:54 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:49 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:51 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 09:03 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 14:47 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 17:45 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:42 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 23:57 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 04:32 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 18:20 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 23:12 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 19:54 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 21:21 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:46 -0400
    Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 08:37 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 09:38 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 10:17 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 12:10 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 13:50 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:11 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:44 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 22:05 -0700

csiph-web