Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

It's meant to bother people. It was intended to add friction to depending on wrapping and to keep people aware that it's a bug to have unmarked overflows. The language can't accept the significant cost of having overflow checks enabled by default today but wants to do it later.

Replying to

and

The design was chosen partially based on the hope that future hardware would get proper support for overflow checks. It's also meant to keep open the possibility of more optimized lazy overflow checks tainting results and delaying producing the error as much as possible.

5:59 PM · Oct 24, 2018Twitter Web Client

Replying to

and

LLVM doesn't support for fast overflow checks, only the slow -fsanitize=integer style. It's also bad at optimizing out checks since it doesn't do aggressive range analysis and relevant optimizations. Having proper compiler and hardware support would lead to changing the default.