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
为了扩展Head Geek的答案，有一种更快的方法来执行addition_is_safe;
bool addition_is_safe(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
unsigned int L_Mask = std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
L_Mask >>= 1;
L_Mask = ~L_Mask;
a &= L_Mask;
b &= L_Mask;
return ( a == 0 || b == 0 );
}
这使用了机器架构安全，64位和32位无符号整数仍然可以正常工作。基本上，我创建了一个掩码，它将屏蔽除最重要的位外的所有内容。然后，对两个整数进行掩码，如果其中任何一个没有设置该位，则加法是安全的。
如果在某个构造函数中预初始化掩码，这将更快，因为它永远不会改变。
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)
salter先生的回答是个好主意。
如果整数计算是必需的(为了精度)，但浮点数是可用的，你可以这样做:
uint64_t foo(uint64_t a, uint64_t b) {
double dc;
dc = pow(a, b);
if (dc < UINT_MAX) {
return (powu64(a, b));
}
else {
// Overflow
}
}
对于无符号整数，只需检查结果是否小于其中一个参数:
unsigned int r, a, b;
r = a + b;
if (r < a)
{
// Overflow
}
对于有符号整数，可以检查参数和结果的符号。
不同符号的整数不能溢出，相同符号的整数只有在结果为不同符号时才会溢出:
signed int r, a, b, s;
r = a + b;
s = a>=0;
if (s == (b>=0) && s != (r>=0))
{
// Overflow
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define MAX 100
int mltovf(int a, int b)
{
if (a && b) return abs(a) > MAX/abs(b);
else return 0;
}
main()
{
int a, b;
for (a = 0; a <= MAX; a++)
for (b = 0; b < MAX; b++) {
if (mltovf(a, b) != (a*b > MAX))
printf("Bad calculation: a: %d b: %d\n", a, b);
}
}
为了扩展Head Geek的答案，有一种更快的方法来执行addition_is_safe;
bool addition_is_safe(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
unsigned int L_Mask = std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
L_Mask >>= 1;
L_Mask = ~L_Mask;
a &= L_Mask;
b &= L_Mask;
return ( a == 0 || b == 0 );
}
这使用了机器架构安全，64位和32位无符号整数仍然可以正常工作。基本上，我创建了一个掩码，它将屏蔽除最重要的位外的所有内容。然后，对两个整数进行掩码，如果其中任何一个没有设置该位，则加法是安全的。
如果在某个构造函数中预初始化掩码，这将更快，因为它永远不会改变。
