While true, it seems that if your array is that close to the inherent size limit in indexing by ints, this is at most a temporary fix. How fast does your sorting requirements go from 2^31 to 2^32? It seems that you should be using size_t here, not int.
Yes, the binary search I wrote back in the day used size_t and represented the range as (start, length) rather than (start, end). Full range, and no overflow anywhere if you write it the obvious way. Maybe it was a little bit slower, I don't know.
I'd used Bentley as the starting point, so I was surprised when this news first came out and got reported as Bentley's bug. I guess it could be considered so.
If that's true, that's a bug in the platform, not the program. The whole point of size_t is to be however many bits you need to represent the size of things in your address space.
