Integer overflows

[Nick Sabalausky]

"superdan" <super at dan.org> wrote in message 
news:g4rg1u$1en7$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> "superdan" <super at dan.org> wrote in message
>> news:g4r88k$qjj$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> > bearophile Wrote:
>> >
>> >> A short article from July 01, 2008, shows that some people are
>> >> re-inventing the integer overflows compiler check that Pascal/Delphi
>> >> programmers have enjoyed for lot of years:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/208801981
>> >>
>> >> This time I am happy that history is repeating itself.
>> >
>> > me 2 but the article is just a rant. we should demand this from 
>> > languages
>> > and computers. well yeah i demand a cow with diet coke too.
>> >
>> > i was always unclear on somethin'. should the check be in the operation 
>> > or
>> > the type of the operand? i mean maybe i have some data and only 
>> > sometimes
>> > i want to make sure there's no overflow. so i'm sayin'
>> >
>> > int a, b, c;
>> > a = b _+_ c;
>> >
>> > or something. that _+_ is checked and shit. or should i be like
>> >
>> > Safe!(int) a, b, c;
>> > a = b + c;
>> >
>> > arguments could go both ways i guess. the advantage of the albeit 
>> > uglier
>> > first solution is that it is more likely to be used. somehow safe types
>> > keep on comin' in languages but people don't use'em if thery're not the
>> > default. positive bias i suppose. (ppl underestimate the likelihood of 
>> > bad
>> > shit happening to'em and overestimate their capacity to avoid bad shit
>> > when it is imminent.)
>>
>> C# has a nice solution that involves (I think this is what they're 
>> named:)
>> "checked" and "unchecked" keywords.  (Heh heh, yes, here I go praising
>> something in C# again. I really do like D better overall, honest! (Of
>> course, D is helped by the fact that C#'s templates are effectively 
>> gimped -
>> just look up the whole "no IArithmetic" bizzareness. Anyway...))
>>
>> The way it works is this:
>> In the compiler settings, you can choose a default, either artithmetic is
>> checked for overflows by default or not checked by default.  Then, in the
>> code, you can override the compiler setting by doing something like this:
>>
>> checked
>> {
>>  // Code here
>> }
>>
>> unchecked
>> {
>>  // Code here
>> }
>>
>> a = checked(b + c);
>> a = unchecked(b + c);
>>
>>
>
> does that checked stuff see through function calls?

I would assume so, but I'd really have to look it up or do a test to be 
sure.