🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <813106607.29468@skipper.demon.co.uk>,
Neil Tungate <neil@skipper.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>seh@seh.codem.com (Stephen E. Halpin) wrote:
>>Something is better than nothing, as long as you dont get a false sense
>>of security from it.  Im more concerned about boundary behavior, ie what
>>happens with (2^31)*4/32..  When executed in order, it should really
>>produce an exception - veriants of C which dont optimize to (2^31)/8
>>return 0 and go on their merry way...  The simple truth of the matter
>>is you have to know something about the underlying machine in almost any
>>language.

>As a naturally cautious type when programming, I would have written:

>(2^31)*(4/32)

Why not just write
	0
?  It's the same thing.  (Hint: 4/32 is 0.)

>as a matter of course. This style makes equations easier to read, and
>also helps the compiler. ie I am forcing the order of execution at all
>times and can therefore ignore compiler nuances :-)

No.  You're forcing *precedence*.  You aren't touching order of *execution*.
Nothing keeps the compiler from, say, calculating the 4/32 first, or the
2^31 first.  (Though I don't see why you don't just *say* 29 * 0.)

-s
-- 
Peter Seebach - seebs@solon.com || seebs@intran.xerox.com --
C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help.  No, really!
Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach.  Like my work?  Send donations!
The *other* C FAQ - ftp taniemarie.solon.com /pub/c/afq