Re: [PATCH 2/2] use __builtin_add_overflow() in st_add() with Clang

["René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>]

On 5/15/26 6:40 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 05:13:46PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> 
>> Clang and GCC optimize away comparisons of overflow checks by checking
>> the carry flag on x64.  GCC does the same on ARM64, but Clang currently
>> (version 22.1) doesn't.
>>
>> Provide a variant of st_add() that wraps __builtin_add_overflow() to
>> help Clang optimize it.  Use it on all platforms for simplicity.
> 
> OK. I probably would have just used the intrinsic everywhere with
> __GNUC__, but if gcc is already figuring it out, it doesn't matter in
> practice.

Did that initially, but found it hard to justify when it has no benefit
and reduces the test coverage of the hand-made check significantly.

>> +/* Help Clang; GCC generates the same code for both variants. */
>> +#if defined(__clang__)
>> +static inline size_t st_add(size_t a, size_t b)
>> +{
>> +	size_t sum;
>> +	if (__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &sum))
>> +		die("size_t overflow: %"PRIuMAX" + %"PRIuMAX,
>> +		    (uintmax_t)a, (uintmax_t)b);
>> +	return sum;
>> +}
>> +#else
>>  static inline size_t st_add(size_t a, size_t b)
>>  {
>>  	if (unsigned_add_overflows(a, b))
> 
> It's a shame we can't share more code here, especially the die message.
> 
> I guess the ideal primitive is probably a wrapper with the same
> interface as __builtin_add_overflow(), which could then be used
> everywhere that unsigned_add_overflows() with some minor conversion.

Junio said the same. :)
> But it gets awkward to do as a macro, and using an inline function runs
> into type questions.
Indeed.  If it was easy then this wouldn't exist as a builtin.  We
can approximate it somewhat, but will it be robust enough?

René