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。

不能从C/ c++中访问溢出标志。

我不同意这种说法。您可以编写一些内联汇编语言并使用jo(跳转溢出)指令，假设您在x86上捕获溢出。当然，您的代码将不再能够移植到其他体系结构。

查看info as和info gcc。

一些编译器提供了对CPU中整数溢出标志的访问，然后可以测试，但这不是标准的。

您还可以在执行乘法之前测试溢出的可能性:

if ( b > ULONG_MAX / a ) // a * b would overflow

x86指令集包括一个无符号乘法指令，它将结果存储到两个寄存器中。要使用C中的指令，可以在64位程序(GCC)中编写以下代码:

unsigned long checked_imul(unsigned long a, unsigned long b) {
  unsigned __int128 res = (unsigned __int128)a * b;
  if ((unsigned long)(res >> 64))
    printf("overflow in integer multiply");
  return (unsigned long)res;
}

对于32位程序，需要使结果为64位，参数为32位。

另一种方法是使用依赖于编译器的intrinsic来检查标志寄存器。关于溢出的GCC文档可以从6.56内置函数执行溢出检查算术中找到。

有一种方法可以确定一个操作是否可能溢出，使用操作数中最高位的位置和一些基本的二进制数学知识。

对于加法，任何两个操作数的结果(最多)比最大操作数的最高1位多1位。例如:

bool addition_is_safe(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) {
    size_t a_bits=highestOneBitPosition(a), b_bits=highestOneBitPosition(b);
    return (a_bits<32 && b_bits<32);
}

对于乘法，任何两个操作数的结果(最多)是操作数的位数之和。例如:

bool multiplication_is_safe(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) {
    size_t a_bits=highestOneBitPosition(a), b_bits=highestOneBitPosition(b);
    return (a_bits+b_bits<=32);
}

类似地，你可以像这样估计a的b次方结果的最大大小:

bool exponentiation_is_safe(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) {
    size_t a_bits=highestOneBitPosition(a);
    return (a_bits*b<=32);
}

(当然，用比特数代替目标整数。)

我不确定确定数字中最高的1位位置的最快方法，这里有一个蛮力方法:

size_t highestOneBitPosition(uint32_t a) {
    size_t bits=0;
    while (a!=0) {
        ++bits;
        a>>=1;
    };
    return bits;
}

它不是完美的，但它能让你在做运算之前知道是否有两个数会溢出。我不知道它是否会比您建议的方式检查结果更快，因为highestOneBitPosition函数中的循环，但它可能会(特别是如果您事先知道操作数中有多少位)。

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)