> The trouble is, you've created another C variant, one with checking. There are many of those, and none have caught on. Because none of these approaches have

> The trouble is, you've created another C variant, one with checking. There are many of those, and none have caught on. Because none of these approaches have been adopted by the standards committee – of which most of the members think C as it is today is just fine and are not interested in these sorts of large-scale safety improvements. If we as an industry could get some new blood on the committee this is an entirely solvable problem. It doesn't require a disruption either: the standard can specify that behavior is implementation defined when safety guarantees are violated so your embedded DSP target can continue whatever it is doing today but the rest of us stuck with 100s of millions of lines of C code can start making some improvements.