Tool to explain C code

The languages have similar feature-sets. The performance difference comes from the fact that Fortran says aliasing is not allowed, unless an EQUIVALENCE statement is used. Any code that has aliasing is not valid Fortran, but it is up to the programmer and not the compiler to detect these errors. Thus Fortran compilers ignore possible aliasing of memory pointers and allow them to generate more efficient code. Take a look at this little example in C:

void transform (float *output, float const * input, float const * matrix, int *n)
{
    int i;
    for (i=0; i<*n; i++)
    {
        float x = input[i*2+0];
        float y = input[i*2+1];
        output[i*2+0] = matrix[0] * x + matrix[1] * y;
        output[i*2+1] = matrix[2] * x + matrix[3] * y;
    }
}

This function would run slower than the Fortran counterpart after optimization. Why so? If you write values into the output array, you may change the values of matrix. After all, the pointers could overlap and point to the same chunk of memory (including the int pointer!). The C compiler is forced to reload the four matrix values from memory for all computations.

In Fortran the compiler can load the matrix values once and store them in registers. It can do so because the Fortran compiler assumes pointers/arrays do not overlap in memory.

Fortunately, the restrict keyword and strict-aliasing have been introduced to the C99 standard to address this problem. It's well supported in most C++ compilers these days as well. The keyword allows you to give the compiler a hint that the programmer promises that a pointer does not alias with any other pointer. The strict-aliasing means that the programmer promises that pointers of different type will never overlap, for example a double* will not overlap with an int* (with the specific exception that char* and void* can overlap with anything).

If you use them you will get the same speed from C and Fortran. However, the ability to use the restrict keyword only with performance critical functions means that C (and C++) programs are much safer and easier to write. For example, consider the invalid Fortran code: CALL TRANSFORM(A(1, 30), A(2, 31), A(3, 32), 30), which most Fortran compilers will happily compile without any warning but introduces a bug that only shows up on some compilers, on some hardware and with some optimization options.

I see you're using unsigned integers. By definition, in C (I don't know about C++), unsigned arithmetic does not overflow ... so, at least for C, your point is moot :)

With signed integers, once there has been overflow, undefined behaviour (UB) has occurred and your program can do anything (for example: render tests inconclusive). 

#include <limits.h>

int a = <something>;
int x = <something>;
a += x;              /* UB */
if (a < 0) {         /* Unreliable test */
  /* ... */
}

To create a conforming program, you need to test for overflow before generating said overflow. The method can be used with unsigned integers too:

// For addition
#include <limits.h>

int a = <something>;
int x = <something>;
if ((x > 0) && (a > INT_MAX - x)) /* `a + x` would overflow */;
if ((x < 0) && (a < INT_MIN - x)) /* `a + x` would underflow */;

// For subtraction
#include <limits.h>
int a = <something>;
int x = <something>;
if ((x < 0) && (a > INT_MAX + x)) /* `a - x` would overflow */;
if ((x > 0) && (a < INT_MIN + x)) /* `a - x` would underflow */;

// For multiplication
#include <limits.h>

int a = <something>;
int x = <something>;
// There may be a need to check for -1 for two's complement machines.
// If one number is -1 and another is INT_MIN, multiplying them we get abs(INT_MIN) which is 1 higher than INT_MAX
if ((a == -1) && (x == INT_MIN)) /* `a * x` can overflow */
if ((x == -1) && (a == INT_MIN)) /* `a * x` (or `a / x`) can overflow */
// general case
if (a > INT_MAX / x) /* `a * x` would overflow */;
if ((a < INT_MIN / x)) /* `a * x` would underflow */;

For division (except for the INT_MIN and -1 special case), there isn't any possibility of going over INT_MIN or INT_MAX.