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.