Re: Distributivity and types

Sanjay Pujare (sanjayp@ddi.com) wrote:
> : Consider the expression
>
> : a*(b+c)
>
> : Because of distributivity this can be changed to
>
> : a*b+a*c
...
  adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) writes:
> In any case, due to the finite representation problem you should
> always be cautious when applying algebraic laws: machine integers are
> not mathematical integers. Consider the (contrived) case in which b is
> a large number near the high end of the signed representation (eg
> 32,000 in a 16-bit signed 2's complement rep) and c is a negative
> number near the low end (eg -32,000). The bracket (b+c) will then
> evaluate to a number in the middle of the rep. If a is, say, 10 than
> a*(b+c) will not overflow, but (a*b) + (a*c) will overflow so you'll
> get different answers.


Only if overflows trap. If, OTOH, you use modulo (aka wrap-around)
arithmetic, this law holds (as do many others, because the cardinal
numbers modulo 2^N are a field; two's complement numbers are just a
different interpretation, the operations + and * are the same as for
unsigned numbers) and you will get the correct answer.


That's why IMO modulo arithmetic is the best thing we can have if we
are too cheap to afford real integers. All the overflow trapping
causes at least as many headaches as it saves.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.