A concept-centered standard library for C++20, enabling safer and more reliable products and a more modern feel for C++ code.; Also home of Subdoc the code-documentation generator.
Currently the behaviour of operator+= is to check() on overflow.
We could provide a compile-time choice to wrap on overflow instead, which would be cheaper perf-wise (no introduction of branches). This is likely to be required for use in place of primitives in a large project. OTOH then you don't eliminate integer overflow bugs, so may not actually be warranted, though maybe you want different behaviour in debug vs release.
Seeing the number of overflow-caused security bugs on unsigned types this year alone, I don't think we need this for a stable numerics milestone. Maybe a future addition.
Currently the behaviour of operator+= is to check() on overflow.
We could provide a compile-time choice to wrap on overflow instead, which would be cheaper perf-wise (no introduction of branches). This is likely to be required for use in place of primitives in a large project. OTOH then you don't eliminate integer overflow bugs, so may not actually be warranted, though maybe you want different behaviour in debug vs release.