On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 14:01 +0100, Jonny Grant wrote:
> Chris Latner also mentioned integer overflow being undefined, that
> crops up too. There's no easy solution right, we need to hand write
> code the checks? It's human-error prone if we need to manually code
> each check. throwing in C++, or handling in C.
>
> if(N >= INT_MAX)
> {
> throw std::overflow_error("N >= INT_MAX would overflow in for
> loop");
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i <= N; ++i)
> {
> // ...
> }
For debugging use -fsanitize=undefined.
And this is buggy anyway, no matter if there is an UB:
for (unsigned i = 0; i <= N; i++)
make_some_side_effect_without_any_undefined_behavior(i);
If N may be UINT_MAX, this is not UB, but a dead loop. Programming is
just human-error prone, even if you use "some programming language
claimed to be able to eliminate many human errors" (I'll not say its
name, to prevent a flame war).
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
