> Who said overflow was wrong?
The word "overflow".
> It’s also basically impossible to establish invariants about a system for code that is run in signal handlers
Signals are a pain but it doesn't specifically have to be a signal.
The word "overflow".
> It’s also basically impossible to establish invariants about a system for code that is run in signal handlers
Signals are a pain but it doesn't specifically have to be a signal.
Consider protocols with wrapping sequence numbers. Pretty common in the wild. If I increment my 32-bit sequence counter and it goes from 2^32-1 back to 0, that's likely just expected behavior.
A normal exception without stack gremlins trying to break everything.