On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 02:43 am, Chris Angelico wrote: > For application work, it's usually much better to have an integer type > like Python's or Pike's int - a signed integer that can never > overflow. For low-level bit manipulation work, you usually want an > unsigned integer of specific size, with well defined wrap-around > behaviour. When do you actually want a signed integer with > well-defined overflow behaviour?
I'm lead to believe that such a thing is useful in crypto, although I don't quite see it myself. There are good ways to deal with out-of-range results in systems languages: - well-defined wrap-around behaviour; - saturation; - trapping. "Do whatever the hell the compiler feels like doing" is not one of them. More discussion here: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/642 -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
