On Friday, 13 November 2015 at 09:33:51 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I don't understand what you think is so complicated about it?
It is not that it is complicated, but that signed wraparound is
almost always a bug. In C/C++, that result in very questionable
optimizations. But defining the thing as wraparound is also
preventing it to become an error. On the other hand, detection
the overflow is expensive on most machines.
I think Don has a point and the spec should say something like :
signed integer overflow is defined as being a runtime error. For
performance reasons, the compiler may choose to not emit error
checking code and use wraparound semantic instead.
Or something along these lines.
