Re: o3tl::make_unsigned

On Wednesday 29 of January 2020, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 29/01/2020 15:20, Luboš Luňák wrote:
> >   Which is the assumption. Using o3tl::make_signed would not require such
> > an assumption, or it would be even less likely false.
>
> But a precondition-free o3tl::make_signed would need to map an unsigned
> type to a wider signed types, which need not exist.

 That wider type would need to be larger than 63bits, which is a value so 
large that it's extremely unlikely we'd need it in practice any time soon. I 
realize I'm now in the territory of "640K ought to be enough", but seriously, 
in which realistic scenario is a precise representation of 
9223372036854775807 insufficient but 18446744073709551615 will still do?

 This part is about the meaning of the highest bit, and what I'm saying here 
is that in signed/unsigned comparisons you're still more likely in practice 
to encounter the highest bit set in a signed type than in unsigned. People 
are still more likely to mess up the >=0 assumption than compare with an 
unsigned value that has the highest bit set.

> The "if large enough" is the hard part.

 Only theoretically.

> Why resort to code that likely works, when we can write code that is
> guaranteed to work?

 Exactly my point. It's just that you seem to find it guaranteed that people 
won't mess up range checks and only likely there won't be titanically huge 
files/allocations/containers, and I see it the other way around. So far I've 
definitely seen more often somebody get >=0 wrong than I've seen 8 exabytes 
of anything.

> >   For reference, both Java's and C#'s List classes use int for size and
> > index types, and use long for file size and position types. Apparently it
> > does the job.
>
> Sure.  But what we are faced with here are C/C++ APIs that use unsigned
> types, and we have to interoperate with those.

 Sure. 'o3tl::make_signed(l.size())' wherever needed. Done. It'll generally 
need to go next to the place where we'd need to write the make_unsigned() 
variant anyway.

 My point was just that the highest bit in size_t is practically irrelevant.

> You mean, an o3tl::make_signed that maps from an unsigned type to the
> signed type of the same rank?  What would its precondition be, require
> that the given value is sufficiently small?  Typically not being able to
> guarantee that statically, code would then need to first check for '<=
> std::numeric_limits<T>::max()' before being able to call o3tl::make_signed?

 It's the same whether it's make_signed() or make_unsigned().

 Also, it seems to me that you make the mistake of assuming that using an 
unsigned type actually guarantees you anything (the "semantically makes 
sense" mistake I mentioned before). You can as easily "underflow" unsigned as 
you can overflow signed.

> I still fail to see how converting from unsigned to signed is generally
> possible, leave alone safe.

 I can write the same about the other direction. The difference is that 
signed->unsigned cuts off values that are realistic and unsigned->signed cuts 
off values that are pretty much unrealistic.

 What exactly is the base for your claim that signed->unsigned is better than 
unsigned->signed?

-- 
 Luboš Luňák
 l.lunak@collabora.com