It will not "overflow". Signed integer overflow is undefined behavior. The compiler could remove the whole loop or do anything else imaginable (or not).

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TIL!

I wonder how many languages out there do define what happens on integer overflow.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Languages with dynamic typing and implicit large-integer types, such as Python and Ruby, generally just convert to that large-integer type.

I figured Java would probably define the behavior in the JVM, but based on a quick web search it sounds like it probably doesn't by default, but does provide library methods to add or subtract safely.

Rust guarantees a panic by default, but provides library methods for wrapping, saturating, and unchecked (i.e. unsafely opting back in to undefined behavior).

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh good call! What I was trying to do is more complex than I was thinking.

Hmmmmm.

int f = TRUE;
for (int y = MIN_INT; f || y - 1 &lt; y; y++) {
  f = FALSE;
  if (y == x + 1) {
    x = y;
  }
}

(I should just test my code to make sure it works, but I haven't. Heh.)

Also, Lemmy escaped your angle bracket too. Back ticks don't seem to do the trick.

Block: &lt;

Inline: <

Or were you suggesting back ticks for some other purpose? (I did use back ticks in my first post in this thread.)

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 points 1 year ago

The backticks worked in the preview, and showed up correctly to start, but there must be a bug in the lemmy ui, since now it's double-escaped. No idea /shrug