Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!assar!sunic!kth.se!cyklop.nada.kth.se!news
From: d88-jwa@byse.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: 68000 Assembly question -- overflow
Message-ID: <D88-JWA.91May30103127@byse.nada.kth.se>
Date: 30 May 91 08:31:30 GMT
References: <12423.284125F3@stjhmc.fidonet.org>
	<1991May29.210531.7174@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@nada.kth.se (Mr News)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: tisu@quads.uchicago.edu's message of 29 May 91 21:05:31 GMT

> tisu@quads.uchicago.edu (Seth Tisue) writes:

   I wasn't advocating one's complement arithmetic -- I'm not that naive.  What
   I was wondering was, why not have $80000000 (-2^31) be an invalid number
   rather than -2^31, thus removing the asymmetry?  I'm assuming there's some
   good reason for this...  What uses does one "often have" for the extra
   number?

#define _FLAME mild

And spend one extra clock cycle checking for this illegal number
for each instruction ? Are you serious ?

And if the "extra" negative number really bothers you, I suggest
you a) take a week in the countryside or b) see a psychologist.

#undef _FLAME

--
						Jon W{tte
						h+@nada.kth.se
						- Speed !