4 ms·
It is, however, what many DSPs do.
by ori_b 11y ago
It is, however, what many DSPs do.
- makomk 11y agoMany DSPs don't support byte addressing or arithmetic on 8-bit integers which a huge amount of non-DSP C code relies on. They're not exactly friendly to code not written specifically to run on the DSP. (Or C code in general, for that matter - the reason they have saturating addition and other oddball instructions is because it makes a lot of DSP code faster, but there's no C representation of any of those things.)
- ori_b 11y agoAnd now we get back to the initial quote: "What's your point? If you define a "plain integer addition" to be "wrapping binary two-complement addition", then there isn't, otherwise, there is."
- Dylan16807 11y agoOkay, well since it's my term, I'll make it absolutely clear. The definition is not circular. On those DSPs, plain integer addition is saturating. For x86, so far all evidence points to it being twos-complement. So the original original quote, "on x86 INT_MAX+1==INT_MIN", is true. As far as I can tell.