Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: negative addresses (really unsigned arithmetic)
Message-ID: <3147@pdn.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 88 02:26:00 GMT
References: <2393@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <9485@apple.Apple.Com> <11571@ut-sally.UUCP> <1988May15.220044.12987@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 19

In article <1988May15.220044.12987@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>...  As people have already pointed out, nasty surprises lurk in unsigned
>arithmetic, and it is potentially less efficient to boot (although on most
>machines the difference, if any, is slight). ...

Those are interesting assertions.  I, for one, would like to see the 
justification(s) for them.  Specifically, what are the "nasty surprises"
hiding in unsigned arithmetic that do not also exist for signed
arithmetic AS IT IS COMMONLY IMPLEMENTED IN HARDWARE?  Why should
signed arithmetic be more efficient than unsigned?

--just curious--


-- 
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida.
Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne
            Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be).
Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!