Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik
From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: checking for overflow in C
Summary: Why not use overflows?
Message-ID: <1292@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 8 May 89 13:55:35 GMT
References: <13367@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <10218@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 22

In article <10218@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In article <13367@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> shallit@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
< <... enlighten me about the officially approved way of checking overflow when
< <multiplying two integers.
> 
> Patient:  Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
> Doctor:  Don't do that!
> 
> You're looking for tactics when what is needed is better strategy.
> How did you get your algorithm into the state where an overflow is
> even possible?  Sounds to me like the algorithm needs to be better
> engineered.


Are you that certain that the algorithm using overflow is not better
engineered than the one that does not?  By better engineered, I mean
that it runs faster.  If it is on the machine, it should be available
for use.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)