Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2000
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 02:19:40PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 06:38:59AM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > I have been down this path many times and I think I once even hacked
> > pp_add and pp_substract to correctly detect overflow situations and
> > returns IVs/UVs when possible. The problem is that this slowed down
> > Perl by about 10%.
>
> even for a lazier test such as (for 32 bit ints) both bits 30 being clear
> for addition means that there can't be overflow?
> and both arguments < 2^16 for multiplication?
You can try be smarter but I think in any case you will end up with
a couple of tests before you do the actual op, so some speed hit is
inevitable. And remember that 32 bit ints is awfully quaint :-) The
basic source suckage here is C: however nice portable assembler it is,
it's too high-level because you can't detect whether you just had an
integer overflow.
> Nicholas Clark
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next