First, the code claims to be returning "unsigned long" from each of these functions, but the value will only ever be 0 or 1 (see [1]). The code is actually throwing away the result and just returning whether overflow occurred. If we take unsigned long *c as another argument to the function, so that we actually keep the result, we end up having to issue an extra instruction for multiplication (see [2]; I'm ignoring the sd instruction since it is simply there to dereference the *c pointer and wouldn't exist if the function got inlined).
Second, this is just unsigned overflow detection. If we do signed overflow detection, now we're up to 5 instructions for add and mul (see [3]). Considering that this is the bigger challenge, it compares quite unfavorably to architectures where this is just 2 instructions: the operation itself and a branch against a condition flag.
That's fair. The good news is that for signed overflow, you can claw back to the cost of unsigned overflow if you know the sign of either argument (which is fairly common).
dammmit I meant <=2. https://godbolt.org/z/4WxeW58Pc sltu or snez for add/multiply respectively.
This result is misleading.
First, the code claims to be returning "unsigned long" from each of these functions, but the value will only ever be 0 or 1 (see [1]). The code is actually throwing away the result and just returning whether overflow occurred. If we take unsigned long *c as another argument to the function, so that we actually keep the result, we end up having to issue an extra instruction for multiplication (see [2]; I'm ignoring the sd instruction since it is simply there to dereference the *c pointer and wouldn't exist if the function got inlined).
Second, this is just unsigned overflow detection. If we do signed overflow detection, now we're up to 5 instructions for add and mul (see [3]). Considering that this is the bigger challenge, it compares quite unfavorably to architectures where this is just 2 instructions: the operation itself and a branch against a condition flag.
[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins...
[2]: https://godbolt.org/z/7rWWv57nx
[3]: https://godbolt.org/z/PnzKaz4x5
That's fair. The good news is that for signed overflow, you can claw back to the cost of unsigned overflow if you know the sign of either argument (which is fairly common).
3 replies →