version(noboundscheck) + friends

[Timothee Cour]

> given the overhead that it would introduce
Do you mean compiler-implementation overhead or resulting runtime overhead?

If you mean runtime overhead then I disagree, as this would be an opt-in
option enabled with, say, a version identifier such as
version=check_arithmetic_overflow (same as version=assert + friends); it
would not be implied by version=debug, so it wouldn't slow down normal
debug builds (as the slow down might be significant), but would save hours
of debugging to track down overflow bugs when the user requests it
explicitly.

I've described this precisely in my post:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kn3f9v$25pd$1@digitalmars.com?page=2#post-mailman.161.1369525278.13711.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
but it received no answer.



On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 04, 2013 09:14:28 eles wrote:
> > On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 22:19:23 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> > > On 06/03/2013 03:11 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
> > > > Why aren't we using version=noboundscheck (+ friends) instead
> > >
> > > of
> > >
> > > > -noboundscheck?
> >
> > Hijack: what about version(integeroverflow)
>
> Nothing in the language checks for integer overflow, and given the overhead
> that it would introduce, there's pretty much no way that it's ever going
> to be
> added. Walter has been against it every time that it's come up.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20130604/790f1351/attachment-0001.html>