> And further, defining a lot of UB won't actually improve things. Imagine we define signed integer overflowing behavior. Hooray. Now your program just has a di

> And further, defining a lot of UB won't actually improve things. Imagine we define signed integer overflowing behavior. Hooray. Now your program just has a different bug. This is exactly what JF Bastien argues in his hourlong talk: https://youtu.be/JhUxIVf1qok?t=2284 https://youtu.be/JhUxIVf1qok?t=2284 So yeah, defining signed integer overflow isn't going to fix bugs in the vast majority of existing programs. That being said, enforcing signed overflow wraparound at least makes debugging easier because it's reproducible. This is how it is in Java land - int overflow wraps around, and integer type widths are fixed, so if you trigger an overflow while testing then it is reliably reproducible across all conforming Java compiler and VM versions and platforms.