我用c++写了一个程序来寻找ab = C的所有解,其中a, b和C一起使用所有的数字0-9,只使用一次。程序循环遍历a和b的值,并每次对a、b和ab运行数字计数例程,以检查是否满足数字条件。

但是,当ab超出整数限制时,会产生伪解。我最终使用如下代码来检查这个:

unsigned long b, c, c_test;
...
c_test=c*b;         // Possible overflow
if (c_test/b != c) {/* There has been an overflow*/}
else c=c_test;      // No overflow

是否有更好的方法来测试溢出?我知道有些芯片有一个内部标志,在溢出发生时设置,但我从未见过通过C或c++访问它。


注意,有符号int溢出在C和c++中是未定义的行为,因此您必须在不实际引起它的情况下检测它。对于加法前的有符号整型溢出,请参见在C/ c++中检测有符号溢出。


当前回答

一种简单的方法是重写所有操作符(特别是+和*),并在执行操作之前检查是否有溢出。

其他回答

I see that a lot of people answered the question about overflow, but I wanted to address his original problem. He said the problem was to find ab=c such that all digits are used without repeating. Ok, that's not what he asked in this post, but I'm still think that it was necessary to study the upper bound of the problem and conclude that he would never need to calculate or detect an overflow (note: I'm not proficient in math so I did this step by step, but the end result was so simple that this might have a simple formula).

重点是问题要求的a b c的上限是98.765.432。不管怎样,先把问题分成琐碎部分和非琐碎部分:

X0 == 1(9、8、7、6、5、4、3、2的所有排列都是解) X1 == x(无解) 0b == 0(不可能解) 1b == 1(无解) Ab, a > 1, b > 1(非平凡)

Now we just need to show that no other solution is possible and only the permutations are valid (and then the code to print them is trivial). We go back to the upper bound. Actually the upper bound is c ≤ 98.765.432. It's the upper bound because it's the largest number with 8 digits (10 digits total minus 1 for each a and b). This upper bound is only for c because the bounds for a and b must be much lower because of the exponential growth, as we can calculate, varying b from 2 to the upper bound:

    9938.08^2 == 98765432
    462.241^3 == 98765432
    99.6899^4 == 98765432
    39.7119^5 == 98765432
    21.4998^6 == 98765432
    13.8703^7 == 98765432
    9.98448^8 == 98765432
    7.73196^9 == 98765432
    6.30174^10 == 98765432
    5.33068^11 == 98765432
    4.63679^12 == 98765432
    4.12069^13 == 98765432
    3.72429^14 == 98765432
    3.41172^15 == 98765432
    3.15982^16 == 98765432
    2.95305^17 == 98765432
    2.78064^18 == 98765432
    2.63493^19 == 98765432
    2.51033^20 == 98765432
    2.40268^21 == 98765432
    2.30883^22 == 98765432
    2.22634^23 == 98765432
    2.15332^24 == 98765432
    2.08826^25 == 98765432
    2.02995^26 == 98765432
    1.97741^27 == 98765432

注意,例如最后一行:它说1.97^27 ~98M。因此,例如,1^27 == 1和2^27 == 134.217.728,这不是一个解决方案,因为它有9位数字(2 > 1.97,所以它实际上比应该测试的要大)。可以看到,用于测试a和b的组合非常小。对于b == 14,我们需要尝试2和3。对于b == 3,我们从2开始,到462结束。结果均小于~98M。

现在只需测试以上所有的组合,找出不重复任何数字的组合:

    ['0', '2', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8'] 84^2 = 7056
    ['1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '8', '9'] 59^2 = 3481
    ['0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '8', '9'] 59^2 = 3481 (+leading zero)
    ['1', '2', '3', '5', '8'] 8^3 = 512
    ['0', '1', '2', '3', '5', '8'] 8^3 = 512 (+leading zero)
    ['1', '2', '4', '6'] 4^2 = 16
    ['0', '1', '2', '4', '6'] 4^2 = 16 (+leading zero)
    ['1', '2', '4', '6'] 2^4 = 16
    ['0', '1', '2', '4', '6'] 2^4 = 16 (+leading zero)
    ['1', '2', '8', '9'] 9^2 = 81
    ['0', '1', '2', '8', '9'] 9^2 = 81 (+leading zero)
    ['1', '3', '4', '8'] 3^4 = 81
    ['0', '1', '3', '4', '8'] 3^4 = 81 (+leading zero)
    ['2', '3', '6', '7', '9'] 3^6 = 729
    ['0', '2', '3', '6', '7', '9'] 3^6 = 729 (+leading zero)
    ['2', '3', '8'] 2^3 = 8
    ['0', '2', '3', '8'] 2^3 = 8 (+leading zero)
    ['2', '3', '9'] 3^2 = 9
    ['0', '2', '3', '9'] 3^2 = 9 (+leading zero)
    ['2', '4', '6', '8'] 8^2 = 64
    ['0', '2', '4', '6', '8'] 8^2 = 64 (+leading zero)
    ['2', '4', '7', '9'] 7^2 = 49
    ['0', '2', '4', '7', '9'] 7^2 = 49 (+leading zero)

没有一个匹配问题(这也可以通过缺少'0','1',…“9”)。

下面是解决该问题的示例代码。还要注意,这是用Python编写的,不是因为它需要任意精确整数(代码不会计算任何大于9800万的数字),而是因为我们发现测试的数量非常少,所以我们应该使用高级语言来利用其内置的容器和库(还要注意:代码有28行)。

    import math

    m = 98765432
    l = []
    for i in xrange(2, 98765432):
        inv = 1.0/i
        r = m**inv
        if (r < 2.0): break
        top = int(math.floor(r))
        assert(top <= m)

        for j in xrange(2, top+1):
            s = str(i) + str(j) + str(j**i)
            l.append((sorted(s), i, j, j**i))
            assert(j**i <= m)

    l.sort()
    for s, i, j, ji in l:
        assert(ji <= m)
        ss = sorted(set(s))
        if s == ss:
            print '%s %d^%d = %d' % (s, i, j, ji)

        # Try with non significant zero somewhere
        s = ['0'] + s
        ss = sorted(set(s))
        if s == ss:
            print '%s %d^%d = %d (+leading zero)' % (s, i, j, ji)

在C中捕获整数溢出指出了一种比CERT讨论的更通用的解决方案(就处理的类型而言,它更通用),即使它需要一些GCC扩展(我不知道它们有多广泛的支持)。

警告:GCC在使用-O2编译时会优化掉溢出检查。 选项-Wall会在某些情况下给你一个警告

if (a + b < a) { /* Deal with overflow */ }

但在这个例子中不是:

b = abs(a);
if (b < 0) { /* Deal with overflow */ }

唯一安全的方法是在溢出发生之前检查溢出,正如CERT论文中所描述的那样,系统地使用这种方法将非常繁琐。

使用-fwrapv编译可以解决这个问题,但会禁用一些优化。

我们迫切需要一个更好的解决方案。我认为编译器应该发出一个警告,默认情况下,优化依赖于溢出没有发生。目前的情况允许编译器优化掉溢出检查,这在我看来是不可接受的。

如果您有一个比您想要测试的数据类型大的数据类型(比如您做了一个32位的添加,而您有一个64位的类型),那么这将检测是否发生溢出。我的例子是一个8位的添加。但它可以放大。

uint8_t x, y;    /* Give these values */
const uint16_t data16    = x + y;
const bool carry        = (data16 > 0xFF);
const bool overflow     = ((~(x ^ y)) & (x ^ data16) & 0x80);

它基于本页解释的概念:http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc311/Notes/Comb/overflow.html

对于一个32位的例子,0xFF变成0xFFFFFFFF, 0x80变成0x80000000,最后uint16_t变成uint64_t。

注意:这捕获整数加法/减法溢出,我意识到你的问题涉及乘法。在这种情况下,分裂可能是最好的办法。这通常是calloc实现确保参数在相乘以获得最终大小时不会溢出的一种方式。

Clang现在支持有符号整数和无符号整数的动态溢出检查。参见-fsanitize=integer开关。目前,它是唯一完全支持用于调试目的的动态溢出检查的c++编译器。