|Re: Optimization techniques firstname.lastname@example.org (David Brown) (2019-04-25)|
|Re: Optimization techniques email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-04-26)|
|Re: Optimization techniques firstname.lastname@example.org (David Brown) (2019-04-28)|
|Re: Optimization techniques email@example.com (Gene Wirchenko) (2019-04-30)|
|Re: Optimization techniques firstname.lastname@example.org (David Brown) (2019-05-01)|
|Re: Optimization techniques and error detection email@example.com (Gene Wirchenko) (2019-05-03)|
|From:||Gene Wirchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Fri, 03 May 2019 10:16:26 -0700|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|References:||<email@example.com> 19-04-021 19-04-023 19-04-037 19-04-052 19-05-002|
|Injection-Info:||gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="9459"; mail-complaints-to="firstname.lastname@example.org"|
|Posted-Date:||03 May 2019 14:00:10 EDT|
On Wed, 1 May 2019 09:20:23 +0200, David Brown
>On 01/05/2019 03:24, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 23:49:53 +0200, David Brown
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> If you are writing your code in a "C with the extra feature of having
>>> defined behaviour on signed integer overflow", and only compile it with
>>> suitable compilers (or compiler flags), then that's okay. But don't
>>> call it correct C code and blame compilers for your own mistakes or
>>> unwarranted assumptions.
>> I would like to see it as part of the language. I *know* that I
>> want to have an error be thrown at run-time if an error can be
>> detected. (It is not an unwarranted assumption.) It is not as if
>> detecting signed integer overflow is a difficult thing on, for
>> example, System/370, which also dates from 1970.
>Detecting signed overflow at run-time can be a significant cost. It
Not detecting it can have a significant cost, too. Incorrect
results can cost.
>No, throwing an error on overflows is not hard - but it /is/ costly. It
>can be a marvellous tool during testing and debugging, and may be worth
>leaving active in some programs, but it has a price.
I do not deny it has a price, but I do not care about the price.
I want the correctness. Others have different priorities: fine, but I
want my priorities dealt with, too.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.