Integer overflow and underflow in Blockchain / Solidity - Practice Problems & Coding Challenges

Challenge - 5 Problems

❓ Predict Output

intermediate

What is the output of this Solidity code snippet?

Consider the following Solidity function that uses uint8 type. What will be the value of result after calling testUnderflow()?

Blockchain / Solidity

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
contract Test {
    uint8 public result;
    function testUnderflow() public {
        uint8 x = 0;
        unchecked {
            x = x - 1;
        }
        result = x;
    }
}

A Compilation error due to underflow

B result will be 0

C result will be 255

D result will be 1

💡 Hint

Think about how unchecked blocks affect arithmetic in Solidity.

In Solidity 0.8.0 and above, arithmetic operations revert on overflow/underflow by default. However, inside an unchecked block, these checks are disabled. Since uint8 is an 8-bit unsigned integer, subtracting 1 from 0 wraps around to 255.

🧠 Conceptual

intermediate

Which statement best describes integer overflow in blockchain smart contracts?

Choose the most accurate description of integer overflow in the context of blockchain smart contracts.

A Integer overflow is a syntax error detected during contract compilation.

B Integer overflow occurs when a number exceeds the maximum value the data type can hold, causing it to wrap around to zero or a small number.

C Integer overflow happens when a number becomes negative in an unsigned integer type.

D Integer overflow only happens in floating-point numbers, not integers.

💡 Hint

Think about what happens when a number is too big for its type.

Integer overflow happens when a value goes beyond the maximum limit of its data type, causing it to wrap around to a low value, often zero or near zero, which can cause unexpected behavior in smart contracts.

🔧 Debug

advanced

Identify the cause of unexpected behavior in this Solidity function

The following Solidity function is intended to add two uint8 numbers safely. However, it sometimes returns incorrect results without errors. What is the cause?

Blockchain / Solidity

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
contract SafeAdd {
    function add(uint8 a, uint8 b) public pure returns (uint8) {
        unchecked {
            return a + b;
        }
    }
}

A The <code>unchecked</code> block disables overflow checks, so addition can overflow silently.

B The function should use <code>int8</code> instead of <code>uint8</code> to avoid overflow.

C The function lacks a return statement causing runtime error.

D The compiler version is too old to support <code>unchecked</code> blocks.

💡 Hint

Consider what unchecked does to arithmetic operations.

The unchecked block disables Solidity's default overflow checks introduced in 0.8.0. This means if a + b exceeds 255 for uint8, it wraps around silently, causing incorrect results without errors.

📝 Syntax

advanced

Which option causes a compile-time error due to integer overflow in Solidity 0.8+?

Given Solidity 0.8.0 or newer, which code snippet will cause a compile-time or runtime error due to integer overflow?

A uint8 x = 0; unchecked { x = x - 1; }

B uint8 x = 255; unchecked { x = x + 1; }

C uint8 x = 0; x = x - 1;

D uint8 x = 255; x = x + 1;

💡 Hint

Remember how Solidity 0.8+ handles overflow by default.

In Solidity 0.8+, arithmetic overflow causes a runtime error unless inside an unchecked block. Option D adds 1 to 255 without unchecked, causing a runtime revert. Options B and D use unchecked so no error occurs. Option D subtracts 1 from 0 without unchecked, also causing a runtime error, but the question asks for overflow, not underflow.

🚀 Application

expert

How many items are in the resulting mapping after this Solidity code runs?

Consider the following Solidity contract snippet. After calling populate(), how many keys will the balances mapping contain?

Blockchain / Solidity

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
contract MappingTest {
    mapping(uint256 => uint256) public balances;
    function populate() public {
        for (uint8 i = 0; i <= 255; i++) {
            unchecked {
                balances[i] = i + 1;
            }
        }
    }
}

A 0

B 257

C 255

D 256

💡 Hint

Consider the effect of uint8 overflow during the for loop increment.

Although the loop condition suggests it runs 256 times (i from 0 to 255 inclusive), after executing the body for i=255, the increment 'i++' performs 'i = i + 1' on uint8 (255 + 1 = 256), which overflows. Since this operation is outside the unchecked block, Solidity 0.8+ reverts the transaction. The revert rolls back all storage changes, leaving the balances mapping with 0 keys.