|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

Posted Aug 18, 2012 18:19 UTC (Sat) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624)
In reply to: Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel by josh
Parent article: Signed overflow optimization hazards in the kernel

One objection was that there really are still non-twos-complement machines in common use. As was noted by the comment to this article discussing saturating adders, where 32767+1==32767. But this would be addressed by "implementation defined" rather than "undefined".

Another objection was that there are systems still in common use that trap on signed integer overflow. If the C standard required wrapping, compilers for such systems would require special edge-case checks on pretty much any signed integer operation.

And there was of course also the objection that signed integer overflow always has been undefined. ;-)


to post comments


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds