checkedint call removal

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/30/14, 4:29 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 07/31/14 01:14, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 7/30/14, 3:41 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 22:30:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2014 3:20 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>>>     void f(ubyte[] a) @safe { assert(a.length>99); a[88] = a[77]; }
>>>>
>>>> The compiler will insert array bounds checking for you.
>>>
>>> Trying to understand what your position is: In release mode, but with
>>> bounds checking enabled, would the compiler
>>>     a) be allowed to replace this with a RangeError or, say, ud2 or
>>> another halt()-type instruction?
>>>     b) treat any call to f() as undefined behavior?
>>
>> I think that's a good example. My understanding (I know it wasn't me who was asked...): the presence of assert should not influence the introduction of bounds checks.
>
> But it would. Special casing just the built-in types would only avoid
> the problem for built-in types. User defined types that handle the bounds
> checks differently would still be affected (and @unsafe).

I think bounds checking is an intrinsic feature of the language, not 
something easily configurable. -- Andrei