Comment by tinglymintyfrsh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tinglymintyfrsh | Hacker News Reader

tinglymintyfrsh

tl;dr

    #include <stdckdint.h>



    bool ckd_add(type1 *result, type2 a, type3 b);
    bool ckd_sub(type1 *result, type2 a, type3 b);
    bool ckd_mul(type1 *result, type2 a, type3 b);



    #include <stdckdint.h>
    #include <limits.h>

    /* ... */
    int x;
    int a = INT_MAX;
    int b = INT_MAX;

    if (!chk_add(&x, a, b)) {
       /* error! */
    }

Other stuff on the table for C23

- https://thephd.dev/c-the-improvements-june-september-virtual...

- (PDF) https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3054.pdf

You have it backwards: it returns true on error.

> if (!chk_add(&x, a, b)) { > /* error! */ > }

does it return non-zero on success???

It returns a boolean.

They're using a bool, so it violates the old-school C paradigm used for library calls. This is more of a macro rather than a syscall or standard library function call.

It returns a bool, but true means error, not false.

It's not really an error. The function is just "check if this addition overflows" and tells you true, it does overflow, or false, it doesn't.

Let's take this as evidence that the proposal is counter-intuitive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com