[OT] The Usual Arithmetic Confusions

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 22:12:10 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> With the implementation-defined solution, there is the issue 
> that potentially any change may break memory safety. Some other 
> functions memory safety may be depending on correct behaviour 
> of `@safe` function that has an overflowing integer.

You mean in @trusted code, but then you need to be more specific. 
If it actually was an overflow that same argument would can be 
made about a wrap-around. Maybe the @trusted code did not expect 
a negative value…

If there is an overflow in computing x, then it makes sense that 
the value of x is an arbitrary bit-pattern constrained to the 
bit-width. You can constrain it further like that if that turns 
out to be needed.

Of course, this will only be relevant in @safe code sections 
where you disable trapping of overflow.