This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:50:40AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > It should be possible to have something like > > > > ((a | b) > (a * b)) > > > > for unsigned values. I'm not 100% sure, though. > > I mean, this is an approximation which lets us avoid the division in > many (most?) cases. Many. a=1 b=2 -> is this overflow? a=0x6000000 b=64 -> this would signal no overflow, while in fact it overflowed. Etc. I think the only way is to put the multiply + check for overflow into some macro and optimize it per-architecture... Jakub
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |