🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4cpv1n$apm@der.twinsun.com>, eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes:
> Since this is comp.std.c, I'll mention that the (x + y < x) != (y < 0) method
> and Daniel Wood's example both port to any C implementation
> claiming conformance to LIA-1 (ISO/IEC 10967-1:1994(E),
> `Information technology -- Language independent arithmetic -- Part 1:
> Integer floating point arithmetic' <ftp://crl.dec.com/pub/misc/lia-1-dis.ps.Z>)
> if INT_MODULO is true (which is the only plausible value for INT_MODULO
> for real-world C compilers).

The current thinking about binding LIA-1 to C allows signed and unsiged
integers to have different behavior.  Whilst unsigned integers *have*
to be MODULO for standard conformance, there is no good reason for
signed integers to be the same (other than that many existing machine
architectures make it very inconvenient to have them be different). 
Some (many?) people think that raising an exception of some kind for
signed integer overflow is very desirable, rather than allowing the
answer to quietly wrap around.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
Some people just don't have inquisitive minds. -- Calvin