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

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism?
Date	2017-04-28 10:58 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<odv01r$fd6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<11ea6682-cdee-4513-97c2-6c90b585716a@googlegroups.com> <87o9vi6rql.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <26aee5e9-ed2f-4c6e-af68-b85418c7e641@googlegroups.com> <odtskd$sn1$1@dont-email.me> <2bf49ed4-ded6-4a40-9563-bfde4fa96c6d@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/04/17 06:05, joel.rees@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 8:01:45 AM UTC+9, David Brown wrote:
>> (Please get a real newsreader and server, rather than google
>> groups.)
> 
> You got a favorite?

A very popular combination is Thunderbird as the newsreader, and
news.eternal-september.org as the free newsserver.  It works for Linux,
Windows and Mac.  Google groups is fine for researching old posts, but a
poor interface for daily newsgroup usage.  And it screws up line splits,
which is a pain for everyone else!

(I don't want to start a discussion about different newsreader clients
here - I just want to let you know that you will be happier, and we will
be happier, if you switch from google groups.  Now back to C.)

> 
> I'm using googlemail because google insists on fighting with
> sylpheed, but googlecode sure drags the browser through the mud and
> heats the engines up mercilessly.
> 
>> On 27/04/17 23:35, joel rees@somewhere wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 7:59:40 PM UTC+9, Ben Bacarisse
>>> wrote:
>>>> joel rees@somewhere writes:
>>>> 
>> <snip>
>>> You know, it's funny.
>>> 
>>> We have this coddling of brain-damaged CPUs when a left-shift on
>>> a negative operand is specified on sign-magnitude architectures
>>> or something, but we have this assurance that casting a -1 to an 
>>> unsigned fills the thing with ones.
>> 
>> Left shift of negative integers is like most signed integer
>> overflows - the result is undefined (but an implementation can
>> define it if it wants to).
> 
> When you assume that's an overflow and not a truncation, that seems 
> correct.

It /is/ an overflow, not a truncation.  Mathematically, left shift is
multiplying by 2.  Assuming 16-bit integers because the numbers are
smaller and easier, in what way could 16386 * 2 evaluating to -32768 be
described as a truncation rather than an overflow?  That is what happens
when you left-shift a signed integer that is too large.

Or how about -3072 * 2 evaluating to 4096?  Left shift of negative
signed integers, implemented as a simple hardware shift, gives
meaningless results.

For /unsigned/ arithmetic with modulo behaviour, you are truncating the
highest bits - that is what modulo does.

> 
> I was, for various reasons, looking for the truncation, and now I see
> that the standard says I should say, what was it? (Dragging it in
> from my source code instead of looking back to the previous post.)
> Instead of:
> 
> chMask = ( chMask << 1 ) | 1;
> 
> I should say
> 
> chMask = (unsigned char) ( ( ( (unsigned long) chMask ) << 1 ) | 1 );

No, it does not say that.  It is safe to write

	chMask = ( chMask << 1 ) | 1

(By the way, there is only one thing I think is less useful than using
"Systems Hungarian" notation with variable names prefixed by an
abbreviation of their type - and that is to use it incorrectly and
inconsistently.  But that is style, and not part of the behaviour of the
code.)

> 
>>> (I know calling it brain-damaged is too extreme, but ...)
>>> 
>>> And I have a hard time remembering that assurance is in the
>>> standard. Maybe it's because I don't really use sign-magnitude
>>> that much.
>> 
>> Basically, unsigned arithmetic always works as modulo arithmetic. 
>> Signed arithmetic is not allowed to overflow.  It's actually quite
>>  simple and consistent.
> 
> If you know that unsigned char gets promoted to signed int, as Keith
> Thompson pointed out to me. Somehow, I missed that all those years
> ago.

I cannot remember when I learned about "integer promotions" - but they
are in §6.3.1.1 of the C11 standard.  This newsgroup is a great place to
ask about that sort of thing.

And now you /do/ know about it, allowing you to simplify your code.

(And if ever Keith posts something about the standards that contradicts
what I write, believe Keith.)

> 
>>> The standards committee gets to tilt at windmills, and I get to
>>> chase their rainbows.
>>> 
>>> I really wish the standards committee had instead specified a
>>> means of compile-time testing the architecture for the specific
>>> corner- and edge-cases and providing a means to either pop up a
>>> warning to remind the reader of compiler output that the code
>>> wasn't intended to be compiled on that particular architecture,
>>> or use conditional compiled sections to deal with the corner-case
>>> on those CPUs.
>>> 
>> 
>> There isn't really anything to test at compile time here.  Don't
>> let your signed arithmetic overflow - it does not matter if the
>> underlying hardware is sign-magnitude, two's complement, or
>> whatever.
> 
> Well, you seem to be talking about the shift when I'm talking about 
> the idiom by that point.
> 
> On a sign-magnitude architecture, I think I'd prefer, instead of the
>  idiom, that
> 
> (unsigned char) -1
> 
> hmm. What would I prefer?
> 
> signed char thing = -1; unsigned char uthing = (unsigned long)
> thing;
> 
> should give me, depending on the sign-magnitude implementation, 
> something like 0x81 in uthing.
> 

Having never used a sign-magnitude architecture (and I hope I never have
to!), I can't say what I would /prefer/ here.  But I know how C works,
and it says such conversions to unsigned types are done as modulo.

If you want to get the underlying bit representation of the signed
integer here, then the tool you are looking for is "union" - /not/
conversions.

> Is thing promoted before the cast?

No.  (But it would make no difference if it were.)

> 
>>> A few more hours of their work to help a thousand guys like me to
>>> cut a few wasted days off of tilting with our own windmills every
>>> now and again.
>>> 
>>>>> byteWidth = i; i = 0; while ( ulroller != 0 ) {  ulroller <<=
>>>>> 1; ++i; } ulBytes = i / byteWidth;
>>>> 
>>>> What's wrong with
>>>> 
>>>> ulBytes = sizeof (unsigned long);
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Well, since you ask, you're right. Either way requires run-time
>>> behavior.
>> 
>> sizeof(unsigned long) is fixed at compile time, and even
>> half-decent compilers will optimise accordingly.
> 
> But the last time I tried to use sizeof in a context that required 
> the expression to evaluate to a constant at compile time, the 
> compiler said I was being a naughty boy and would get no pudding that
>  day.

Ah, there is a big difference between "something that the compiler knows
is constant at compilation time" and "something that the C language says
is a "constant expression".  The former can be used for optimisation
purposes, but only the later can be used in things like "#if" directives.

> 
> I ended up using a bunch of ifdefs to pick the right constant.

Everything you need is conveniently available in <limits.h>, saving you
the effort.

> 
> The code I'm working on this time should not have that constraint, 
> although I'm not sure if I want to take the time to go fix it.
> 
> Calling my initialization function fixed my problem for now. It's not
> exactly critical code, but it's in a blog post where it might lead
> some future generations astray. ;-)
> 
> -- Joel Rees
> 
> Delusions of being a novelist: 
> http://joel-rees-economics.blogspot.com/2017/01/soc500-00-00-toc.html
>

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