The primitive integer types supported by CPUs are finite approximations to the infinite set of integers we’re all used to. This approximation breaks down and some computations will give results that don’t match real integers, like 255_u8 + 1 == 0 . Often, this mismatch is something the programmer didn’t think about, and thus can easily result in bugs.

Rust is a programming language designed to protect against bugs; it does focus on outlawing the most insidious class of them—memory unsafety—but it also likes to assist the programmer in avoiding others: memory leaks, ignoring errors, and, in this case, integer overflow.

Overflow in Rust

The status of detecting and avoiding overflow in Rust changed several times in the lead up to the 1.0.0 release last year. That fluid situation means there’s still quite a bit of confusion about exactly how overflow is handled and mitigated, and what the consequences are.

Before 1.0.0-alpha, overflow was handled by wrapping, giving the result one would expect from a two’s complement representation (as most modern CPUs use). However, this was thought to be suboptimal: unexpected and unintended overflow is a common source of bugs. It is particularly bad in C and C++ due to signed overflow being undefined, and the lack of protection against memory safety violations—overflow can easily cascade into memory corruption—but it is still problematic in more defensive languages like Rust: there are numerous examples of overflows, they’ve cropped up in many video games (in their economies, in health bars, and more), binary search and even aircraft. More prosaically, code like max(x - y, z) turns up semiregularly, and it can give wildly wrong results when the numbers are unsigned and x - y overflows through 0. Thus, there was a push to make Rust more defensive about integer overflows.

The current status in Rust was decided in RFC 560:

in debug mode, arithmetic ( + , - , etc.) on signed and unsigned primitive integers is checked for overflow , panicking if it occurs, and,

, , etc.) on signed and unsigned primitive integers is , panicking if it occurs, and, in release mode, overflow is not checked and is specified to wrap as two’s complement.

These overflow checks can be manually disabled or enabled independently of the compilation mode both globally and at a per-operation level.

By checking for overflow in some modes, overflow bugs in Rust code are hopefully found earlier. Furthermore, code that actually wants wrapping behaviour is explicit about this requirement, meaning fewer false positives for both future static analyses and for code that enables overflow checking in all modes.

Myth: overflow is undefined

One way to allow compilers to catch overflow is to make it undefined, that is, there’s absolutely no guarantees about behaviour when overflow occurs and hence it is legal to panic instead of trying to return something. However, Rust’s core goal is ensuring memory safety, and leaving things undefined —in the sense of C undefined behaviour—is in direct contradiction to this. For one, a variable that is undefined does not have to have a consistent value from use to use:

1 2 3 4 5 6 // pseudo-Rust let x = undefined ; let y = x ; let z = x ; assert_eq! ( y , z ); // this could fail

This has disastrous consequences for things that rely on checking a value for safety, like indexing an array with bounds checks foo[x] :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 let x = undefined ; // let y = foo[x]; is equivalent to let y = if x < foo .len () { unsafe { * foo .get_unchecked ( x ) } } else { panic! ( "index out of bounds" ) };

If the value of x isn’t consistent from the x < foo.len() comparison to the actual access of the array, there’s no guarantee the access will be in-bounds: the comparison might be 0 < foo.len() , while the index might be foo.get_unchecked(123456789) . Problematic!

Therefore, unlike signed integers in C, integer overflow cannot be undefined in Rust. In other words, compilers must assume that overflow may happen (unless they can prove otherwise). This has a possibly unintuitive consequence that x + 1 > x is not always true, something C compilers do assume is true if x is signed.

“But what about performance?” I hear you ask. It is true that undefined behaviour drives optimisations by allowing the compiler to make assumptions, and hence removing this ability could impact speed. Overflow of signed integers being undefined is particularly useful in C because such integers are often used as the induction variables on loops, and hence the ability to make assumptions allows more precise analysis of loop trip counts: for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) will repeat n times, as n can be assumed to not be negative. Rust sidesteps much of this by using unsigned integers for indexing ( 0..n will always be n steps), and also by allowing easy custom iterators, which can be used to loop directly over data structures like for x in some_array { ... } . These iterators can exploit guarantees about the data structures internally without having to expose undefined behaviour to the user.

Another thing Rust misses compared to C is optimising x * 2 / 2 to just x , when x is signed. In this case, there’s no built-in feature for getting the optimisation (beyond just writing x instead of the complicated arithmetic of course), however in my experience, expressions like that most often occur with x known at compile time, and hence the whole expression can be constant-folded.

Myth: overflow is unspecified

Similar to leaving the result of overflow undefined, it could be left just unspecified, meaning the compiler must assume it could happen, but is allowed to make the operation return any particular result (or not return at all). Indeed, the first version of RFC 560 for checking integer overflow, proposed:

Change this to define them, on overflow, as either returning an unspecified result, or task panic, depending on whether the overflow is checked. […] In theory, the implementation returns an unspecified result. In practice, however, this will most likely be the same as the wraparound result. Implementations should avoid needlessly exacerbating program errors with additional unpredictability or surprising behavior.

Most importantly: this is not undefined behavior in the C sense. Only the result of the operation is left unspecified, as opposed to the entire program’s meaning, as in C. The programmer would not be allowed to rely on a specific, or any, result being returned on overflow, but the compiler would also not be allowed to assume that overflow won’t happen and optimize based on this assumption.

There was a lot of discussion about the RFC and about the “unspecified” result of arithmetic, meaning that 127_i8 + 1 could theoretically return -128 (per two’s complement) or 0 or 127 , or anything else. This idea took hold in the community… and then it was changed.

With strong encouragement from a few people, the RFC was tightened up to actually specify the result: arithmetic on primitives that overflows either doesn’t return (e.g. it panics), or returns the wrapped result one would expect from two’s complement. It now says:

The operations +, -, *, can underflow and overflow. When checking is enabled this will panic. When checking is disabled this will two’s complement wrap.

Specifying the result is a defensive measure: errors are more likely to cancel out when overflow isn’t caught. An expression like x - y + z is evaluated like (x - y) + z and hence the subtraction could overflow (e.g. x = 0 and y = 1 both unsigned), but as long as z is large enough ( z >= 1 in that example), the result will be what one expects from true integers.

The change happened towards the end of the 160 comment long RFC discussion and so it was easy for people to miss, making it easy for people to still think the result is unspecified.

Myth: the programmer has no control of overflow handling

One of the main objections to adding overflow checking was the existance of programs/algorithms that want two’s complement overflow, such as hashing algorithms, certain data structures (ring buffers, particularly) and even image codecs. For these algorithms, using + in debug mode would be incorrect: the code would panic even though it was executing as intended. Additionally, some more security-minded domains wish to have overflow checks on in all modes by default.

The RFC and the standard library provide four sets of methods beyond the pure operators:

These should cover all bases of “don’t want overflow to panic in some modes”:

wrapping_... returns the straight two’s complement result,

returns the straight two’s complement result, saturating_... returns the largest/smallest value (as appropriate) of the type when overflow occurs,

returns the largest/smallest value (as appropriate) of the type when overflow occurs, overflowing_... returns the two’s complement result along with a boolean indicating if overflow occured, and

returns the two’s complement result along with a boolean indicating if overflow occured, and checked_... returns an Option that’s None when overflow occurs.

All of these can be implemented in terms of overflowing_... , but the standard library is trying to make it easy for programmers to do the right thing in the most common cases.

Code that truly wants two’s complement wrapping can be written like x.wrapping_sub(y).wrapping_add(z) . This works, but clearly can get a little verbose, verbosity that can be reduced in some cases via the standard library’s Wrapping wrapper type.

The current state isn’t necessarily the final state of overflow checking: the RFC even mentioned some future directions. Rust could introduce operators like Swift’s wrapping &+ in future, something that was not done initially because Rust tries to be conservative and reasonably minimal, as well as hypothetically having scoped disabling of overflow checking (e.g. a single function could be explicitly marked, and its internals would thus be unchecked in all modes). There’s interest in the latter particularly, from some of Rust’s keenest (potential) users Servo and Gecko.

For code that wants overflow checking everywhere, one can either use checked_add pervasively (annoying!), or explicitly enable them. Although they are tied to debug assertions by default, overflow checks can be turned on by passing -C debug-assertions=on to rustc, or setting the debug-assertions field of a cargo profile. There’s also work on having them able to be activated independently of other debug assertions (rustc currently has the unstable -Z force-overflow-checks flag).

Myth: the approach to overflow checks makes code slow

Rust aims to be as fast as possible, and the design of the current overflow checking approach took various performance considerations seriously. Performance is one of the main motivations for checks being disabled in release builds by default, and indeed means that there’s no speed penalty to the way in which Rust helps mitigate/flag integer overflow bugs during development.

It’s an unfortunate reality that checking for overflow requires more code and more instructions:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #[no_mangle] pub fn unchecked ( x : i32 , y : i32 ) -> i32 { x .wrapping_add ( y ) } #[no_mangle] pub fn checked ( x : i32 , y : i32 ) -> i32 { x + y }

With -O -Z force-overflow-checks , on x86, this compiles to (with some editing for clarity):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 unchecked: leal (%rdi,%rsi), %eax retq checked: pushq %rax addl %esi, %edi jo .overflow_occurred movl %edi, %eax popq %rcx retq .overflow_occurred: leaq panic_loc2994(%rip), %rdi callq _ZN9panicking5panic20h4265c0105caa1121SaME@PLT

It is definitely annoying that there are all those extra instructions, as is the fact that implementations are forced to use add rather than having the option to use lea . However, an even bigger performance hit is how overflow checks inhibit other optimisations, both because the checks themselves serialise code (inhibiting things like loop unrolling/reordering and vectorisation) and because the panic/stack unwinding forces the compiler to be more conservative.

All these considerations explain why overflow checks are not enabled in release mode, where usually getting the highest performance possible is desirable.

That said, even when the checks are enabled in release mode, the performance hit can be reduced like with bounds checked arrays. For one, compilers can do range analysis/inductive proofs to deduce that certain overflow checks are sure to never fail; indeed, significant effort has been devoted to the topic. Additionally, the significant pain caused by using panics can be reduced by application authors converting panics into aborts, if it’s appropriate for their domain.

The integer overflow RFC gives itself some room for optimisation too: it allows “delayed panics”, meaning a Rust implementation is allowed to perform a sequence of operations like a + b + c + d and only panic once at the end if any intermediate overflow occurred, instead of having to separately check for overflow (and panic) in tmp = a + b and then in tmp + c etc. No known implementation actually does this yet, but they could.

Myth: the checks find no bugs

All the design/discussion/implementation of this scheme for handling integer overflow would be wasted if it didn’t actually find any bugs in practice. I personally have had quite a few bugs found nearly as I write them, with expressions like cmp::max(x - y, z) (they never hit the internet, so no links for them), especially when combined with testing infrastructure like quickcheck .

The overflow checks have found bugs through out the ecosystem; for instance, (not exhaustive!)

Beyond Rust, there’s a lot of evidence for the dangers of integer overflow and desire for detecting/protecting against them. It was on the CWE/SANS list of top 25 errors in 2011, languages like Swift will unconditionally check for overflow, and others like Python 3 and Haskell will avoid overflow entirely by default, via arbitrary precision integers. Furthermore, in C, several compilers have options to both make signed overflow defined as two’s complement wrapping ( -fwrapv ) and to catch it when it does happen ( -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow ).

Thanks to Nicole Mazzuca, James Miller, Scott Olson, and 👻👻👻 for reading and giving feedback on this post.