On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 12:18:23 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 10:22:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
You are free to use a C/C++ compiler that provides a switch
where overflow leads either to an abitrary value (Rust
semantics) or the wrap around (D code gen).
That's the whole point: use a language without UB and the
situation will be better.
My point is that C UB for overflow on signed int does not imply
not having the same code-gen as D has. So it is essentially not a
language problem per se.
The "problem" is cultural. C programmers have this idea that they
should compile everything with the compiler/compiler setting that
gives the absolutely highest performance no matter what the
quality the code. The same thing would happen if LDC added a
switch named "-FAST_AND_RISKY" ;-).
