On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 at 18:04:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
The official stance is, it's not an error. If we treated it as
an error, then it would be very costly to implement, every
operation would have to check for overflow. The CPU does not
assist in this.
You say not an error as meaning the language definition does not
guarantee checking for overflows/underflows and throwing an
exception if one occurs.
But my point is even more simple: is there a stance on what the
overflow/underflow semantics are? E.g., are they undefined (might
wrap, might saturate, might have one's complement behavior, etc),
defined only for unsigned integers (like C and C++), etc?
