What are his arguments against an opt-in flag such as version=check_arithmetic_overflow ?
* slowing down code is a very weak argument precisely because this would be an opt-in flag (and wouldn't be implied by version=debug in my proposal). * reliance on intentional overflow arithmetics could be easily protected with version blocks or similar. This should be the exception, not the norm, and I bet we would start finding existing bugs with such a flag enabled. * the resulting (relatively small) increased complexity of the compiler would be dwarfed by the time savings this would enable for everyone in bug chasing mode On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>wrote: > On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 00:38:17 Timothee Cour wrote: > > > given the overhead that it would introduce > > > > Do you mean compiler-implementation overhead or resulting runtime > overhead? > > I'm talking about runtime overhead, and Walter is flat-out against it. > Anyone > who wants it even in just non-release mode has to figure out how to > convince > him, and no one has been able to do that. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
