Frits van Bommel: > It's fine for Lisp because any Lisp I've ever seen auto-upgrades out-of-range > integers to (heap-allocated) bigints.
I think it can be fine even if you have just fixnums with that single value missing from signed integrals. > I'd like to point out you don't need a new built-in type (or changes to a > existing one) to use those LLVM intrinsics with LDC. Just import > ldc.intrinsics, > define a struct MyInt and overload operators on it using > llvm_sadd_with_overflow > and friends. > > That doesn't work for external libraries of course, but those should be free > to > handle overflow situations and undefined operations however they want without > having to worry about int.nan... Probably I have not expressed myself well in this part of my post, because here I was not taking about a new int type or about int nans. I was talking about int overflows. I'll explain better in #ldc. Bye, bearophile
