C and C++ prioritize performance over correctness (2023)

You can implement C in completely different ways. For example, I like that signed overflow is UB because it is trivial to catch it, while unsigned wraparound - while defined - leads to extremely difficult to find bugs.

Could you provide the code you use to trivially catch signed overflows? My impression is the opposite: unsigned is trivial (just test `a+b < b`) while signed is annoying (especially because evaluating a potentially-overflowing expression would cause the UB I'm trying to avoid).

>unsigned is trivial (just test `a+b < b`)

Nitpicking, the test itself should avoid overflowing. Instead, test "a <= UINT_MAX - b" to prove no overflow occurs.

For signed integers, we need to prove the following without overflowing in the test: "a+b <= INT_MAX && a+b >= INT_MIN". The algorithm follows: test "b >= 0", which implies "INT_MAX-b <= INT_MAX && a+b >= INT_MIN", so then test "a <= INT_MAX-b". Otherwise, "b < 0", which implies "INT_MIN-b >= INT_MIN && a+b <= INT_MAX", so then test "a >= INT_MIN-b".

> Nitpicking, the test itself should avoid overflowing.

Why? Overflowing is well defined for unsigned.