Rust piece on integer safety

[Ed via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 at 23:11:20 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> All the design/discussion/implementation of this scheme for 
> handling integer overflow would be wasted if it didn’t actually 
> find any bugs in practice. I personally have had quite a few 
> bugs found nearly as I write them, with expressions like 
> cmp::max(x - y, z) (they never hit the internet, so no links 
> for them), especially when combined with testing infrastructure 
> like quickcheck.
>
> The overflow checks have found bugs through out the ecosystem; 
> for instance, (not exhaustive!)
>
>     the standard library
>     the compiler
>     the built-in benchmark harness
>     Servo
>     image
>     url
>     webrender
>
> Beyond Rust, there’s a lot of evidence for the dangers of 
> integer overflow and desire for detecting/protecting against 
> them. It was on the CWE/SANS list of top 25 errors in 2011, 
> languages like Swift will unconditionally check for overflow, 
> and others like Python 3 and Haskell will avoid overflow 
> entirely by default, via arbitrary precision integers. 
> Furthermore, in C, several compilers have options to both make 
> signed overflow defined as two’s complement wrapping (-fwrapv) 
> and to catch it when it does happen 
> (-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow).
>
> http://huonw.github.io/blog/2016/04/myths-and-legends-about-integer-overflow-in-rust/

I wonder if Rust uses the built-in "LLVM integer overflow 
checking". Recently this has been posted to r/programming:

http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1384

Since LLVM is used as backend the Rust article might talk exactly 
about the same thing. (to be verified, actually I know nothing 
about Rust).