What about execution speed? I find it somewhat hard to believe that adding 2/3 additional arithmetic instructions plus a branch to every addition/subtraction would perform better than having the (I believe quite small) circuitry after the ALU (probably still on the critical path) that detects carry-out/overflow and triggers a trap.
> it is explicit, which makes it even better. No hidden behaviour.
Which is why we do virtual address translation and populate (and evict!) L1/L2 caches in software, and the reason why CHERI project is misguided.
They made a choice that safe addition takes 3-4 instructions, and wrapping one (rarely used except for cryptography) takes 1 instruction. Doesn't it make more sense to make often-needed safe addition 1 instruction and rarely needed one to take 3-4 instructions?
It is not just "easy" to do, but actually easy to do, without quotes.
And much, much easier than as an exception/trap.
And it is explicit, which makes it even better. No hidden behaviour.