Re: BUG #5592: list of integer undefined behaviors

John Regehr <regehr@cs.utah.edu> writes:
> Tom, would you be willing to isolate these operations into functions
> that could be marked with a "no_overflow_check" attribute?  This would
> be easy for us to deal with, would survive preprocesing cleanly, and
> wouldn't have any performance cost since inliners do a fine job.

Uh, *some* inliners do a fine job.  I'm not really willing to depend on
that for performance.

However, most of the cases that seem of interest so far are in fairly
small, stable functions.  Would it be reasonable to attach a "checked
for overflow problems" label to these functions as a whole?

            regards, tom lane