Upon inspection only that indeed looks correct. Thanks …
On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:28 AM, Louis Wasserman wrote: > Here's one approach that works: there is overflow iff > > compareUnsigned(first, divideUnsigned(MAX_UNSIGNED, radix)) > 0 || (first == > divideUnsigned(MAX_UNSIGNED, radix) && second > > remainderUnsigned(MAX_UNSIGNED, radix)); > > Since radix <= Character.MAX_RADIX, you can precompute the divides and > remainders in a small table.
