3 ms·

> I heard we are still waiting for the cost of performing those checks to be "reasonable" before thinking about making such a change. What I don't understand i

> I heard we are still waiting for the cost of performing those checks to be "reasonable" before thinking about making such a change. What I don't understand is, checking for integer overflow is extremely cheap in hardware, so why is there any cost for performing those checks? What am I missing?

kelnos 4y ago
Presumably the program has to check bit in a status register or something like that to tell if the previous instruction caused overflow, no? That means an extra branch after each arithmetic instruction. I imagine that's not cheap?
dahfizz 4y ago
Integer arithmetic is a significant part of ~every program. A single branch that checks the overflow flag is not expensive. But branching on that flag every time you do integer math is death by a billion paper cuts.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  Your could use interrupts, no? Basically free when not triggered and when triggered you probably don't care about performance anymore.
  - prbs23 4y ago
    Most architectures do not provide an interrupt that is generated by an integer overflow. Since this would be a significant architectural change in the hardware, it can't be simply added in. Additionally, if you are running inside an operating system, handling an interrupt usually incurs a trip through the kernel, which would add extra overhead every time an overflow did happen. Since there's a lot of software which depends on integers overflowing, this overhead on each overflow could significantly impact legacy software.
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      Using a new instruction none of that would be an issue. And as someone pointed out, on x86 it wouldn't even be a new instruction, INTO already exists. But apparently it didn't make it in x64 because nobody used it :/
  - gwillen 4y ago
    x86 at one time had a single-byte instruction that would trap if the overflow bit was set, INTO. It doesn't exist in 64-bit mode, I believe, and it was never widely used as far as I know. The performance implications of adding even a single additional instruction to every integer operation were probably still prohibitive? (And there's a history in x86 of specialized clever instructions and mechanisms going unused, due to being slower than doing the same thing some other way.)
comex 4y ago
Part of it is that most CPU architectures don’t make overflow checking as cheap as it could be (there’s no option to trap on overflow, so you need a branch after every arithmetic operation, which has some cost). Another part is the compiler: a lot of compiler optimizations assume that arithmetic is a pure operation that can be added and removed and reordered as needed. So right now, adding overflow checks means opting out of a ton of optimizations. With care it may be possible to recover most of those optimizations, but it would require major improvements to LLVM.
- superjan 4y ago
  This is a great point. But how about if the language would allow the programmer to specify what range of values is expected for function input/output? Then a compiler could try to reason about the computation and decide that overflow does not happen if all values are within bounds, and just add checks at the function boundaries.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    This would require more checks, not fewer?

kelnos 4y ago

Presumably the program has to check bit in a status register or something like that to tell if the previous instruction caused overflow, no? That means an extra branch after each arithmetic instruction. I imagine that's not cheap?

dahfizz 4y ago

Integer arithmetic is a significant part of ~every program. A single branch that checks the overflow flag is not expensive. But branching on that flag every time you do integer math is death by a billion paper cuts.

CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
Your could use interrupts, no? Basically free when not triggered and when triggered you probably don't care about performance anymore.
- prbs23 4y ago
  Most architectures do not provide an interrupt that is generated by an integer overflow. Since this would be a significant architectural change in the hardware, it can't be simply added in. Additionally, if you are running inside an operating system, handling an interrupt usually incurs a trip through the kernel, which would add extra overhead every time an overflow did happen. Since there's a lot of software which depends on integers overflowing, this overhead on each overflow could significantly impact legacy software.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    Using a new instruction none of that would be an issue. And as someone pointed out, on x86 it wouldn't even be a new instruction, INTO already exists. But apparently it didn't make it in x64 because nobody used it :/
- gwillen 4y ago
  x86 at one time had a single-byte instruction that would trap if the overflow bit was set, INTO. It doesn't exist in 64-bit mode, I believe, and it was never widely used as far as I know. The performance implications of adding even a single additional instruction to every integer operation were probably still prohibitive? (And there's a history in x86 of specialized clever instructions and mechanisms going unused, due to being slower than doing the same thing some other way.)

comex 4y ago

Part of it is that most CPU architectures don’t make overflow checking as cheap as it could be (there’s no option to trap on overflow, so you need a branch after every arithmetic operation, which has some cost). Another part is the compiler: a lot of compiler optimizations assume that arithmetic is a pure operation that can be added and removed and reordered as needed. So right now, adding overflow checks means opting out of a ton of optimizations. With care it may be possible to recover most of those optimizations, but it would require major improvements to LLVM.

superjan 4y ago
This is a great point. But how about if the language would allow the programmer to specify what range of values is expected for function input/output? Then a compiler could try to reason about the computation and decide that overflow does not happen if all values are within bounds, and just add checks at the function boundaries.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  This would require more checks, not fewer?