Question regarding tail call optimization - c

As far as I know, there is a prerequisite for performing tail call optimization is that the recursion point should be the last sentence in the function, and the result of the recursive call should be returned immediately. But why?
Here is a valid example for TCO:
int factorial(int num) {
if (num == 1 || num == 0)
return 1;
return num * factorial(num - 1);
}
So, with the rule, can the below code be optimized too? Why not?
#include <stdio.h>
int factorial(int num) {
if (num == 1 || num == 0)
return 1;
int temp = num * factorial(num - 1);
printf("%d", temp);
return temp;
}
I want to know how should I explain to others why the above rule is necessary for having a TCO. But not just simply follow.

the result of the recursive call should be returned immediately. But why?
That's because in order to optimize a tail call you need to convert the final recursive call into a simple "jump" instruction. When you do this, you are merely "replacing" function arguments and then re-starting the function.
This is only possible if you can "throw away" the current stack frame and re-use it for the same function again, possibly overwriting it. If you need to remember a value to do more calculations and then return, you cannot use the same stack frame for the recursive call (i.e. cannot turn the "call" into a "jump"), as it could possibly erase/modify the value you wanted to remember before returning.
Furthermore, if your function is very simple (like yours) chances are that it could be written without using the stack at all (except for the return address maybe), and only store data in registers. Even in this case, you don't want to make a jump to the same function (that uses the same registers) if you need to remember one of the values before returning.
Here is a valid example for TCO:
int factorial(int num) {
if (num == 1 || num == 0)
return 1;
return num * factorial(num - 1);
}
This is not valid for TCO! You are doing return num * <recursive-call>. The recursive call is not the last thing that the function does, there is a multiplication before returning. It's the same as writing:
int factorial(int num) {
if (num == 1 || num == 0)
return 1;
int tmp = factorial(num - 1);
tmp *= num;
return tmp;
}
can the below code be optimized too?
Nope! Again there simply is no tail call there, and it's even more obvious. You are first doing the recursive call, then some other stuff (multiplication and printf), and then returning. This cannot be optimized as a tail call by the compiler.
On the other hand, the following code can be optimized as a tail call:
int factorial(int n, int x) {
if (n == 1)
return x;
int tmp = factorial(n - 1, n * x);
return tmp;
}
You don't necessarily have to make the recursive call right on the last line of the function. The important thing is that you don't do work in the middle (between the recursive call and the return statement), like for example calling other functions or doing additional calculations.
IMPORTANT: note that just the fact that a classical TCO cannot be performed does not mean that the compiler will not be able to optimize your code in some other way. In fact, your first function is so simple that when compiled with GCC on x86-64 with at least -O2 it just gets converted from recursive to iterative (it basically becomes a single loop). The same goes for my example above, the compiler just doesn't care to do TCO, it sees an even better optimization to make in this case.
Here's the assembler dump of your first function generated by GCC 11 on x86-64 (Godbolt link if you want to play with it). In case you are not familiar with x86: the num argument is in edi, and eax is used for the return value.
factorial:
mov eax, 1
cmp edi, 1
jbe .L1
.L2:
mov edx, edi
sub edi, 1
imul eax, edx
cmp edi, 1
jne .L2
.L1:
ret

Each invocation of a function creates a stack frame with any data passed into that function via arguments. If a function calls another function (including itself) a new stack frame is pushed onto the stack. When a function is completely finished, its frame is popped off the stack.
Stack memory is limited. If we try to push too many frames onto the stack, we get a stack overflow error.
Where tail call optimization comes into play is to recognize that a function is complete if there is no work left to be done after the tail call.
Consider a way of recursively summing a range of numbers.
int sum(int start, int stop) {
if (start == stop) {
return start;
}
else {
return start + sum(start + 1, stop);
}
}
If we call sum(1, 5) the recursion looks something like:
sum(1, 5)
1 + sum(2, 5)
1 + 2 + sum(3, 5)
1 + 2 + 3 + sum(4, 5)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + sum(5, 5)
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
Several stack frames have to be created to hold this.
Typically tail-call optimization for something that requires building up a value involves an accumulator argument passed to the function.
int sum_tco(int start, int stop, int acc) {
if (start == stop) {
return start + acc;
}
else {
return sum_tco(start + 1, stop, start + acc);
}
}
Now consider what the recursion looks like:
sum_tco(1, 5, 0)
sum_tco(2, 5, 1 + 0)
sum_tco(3, 5, 2 + 1 + 0)
sum_tco(4, 5, 3 + 2 + 0)
sum_tco(5, 5, 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 0)
5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 0
We don't need to know what the result of sum(1, 5, 0) or sum(3, 5, 2 + 1 + 0) is to know what the result of sum(5, 5, 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 0) is, and neither does your computer.
A smart compiler realizes this and removes all of those previous stack frames as it goes. With TCO, no matter how many times this function recursively calls itself, it will never overflow the stack.
(Descriptions of how the stack behaves have been generalized and are not intended to be technically in-depth but rather to demonstrate the generalized concept of TCO.)

Related

sum of N natural Number Using Recursion in c

#include<conio.h>
#include<math.h>
int sum(int n);
int main()
{
printf("sum is %d", sum(5));
return 0;
}
//recursive function
int sum(int n)
{
if(n==1)
{
return 1;
}
int sumNm1=sum(n-1); //sum of 1 to n
int sumN=sumNm1+n;
}
Here i didn't understand how this code works when n==1 becomes true,
How this code backtracks itself afterwards..?
The code needs a return statement in the case where n is not 1:
int sum(int n)
{
if(n==1)
{
return 1;
}
int sumNm1=sum(n-1); //sum of 1 to n
int sumN=sumNm1+n;
return sumN;
}
or more simply:
int sum(int n)
{
if(n==1)
{
return 1;
}
return n + sum(n-1);
}
How this code backtracks itself afterwards..?
When a function is called, the program saves information about hwo to get back to the calling context. When return statement is executed, the program uses the saved information to return to the calling context.
This is usually implemented via a hardware stack, a region of memory set aside for this purpose. There is a stack pointer that points to the active portion of the stack memory. When main calls sum(5), a return address into main is pushed onto the stack, and the stack pointer is adjusted to point to memory that is then used for the local variables in sum. When sum calls sum(n-1), which is sum(4), a return address into sum is pushed onto the stack, and the stack pointer is adjusted again. This continues for sum(3), sum(2), and sum(1). For sum(1), the function returns 1, and the saved return address is used to go back to the previous execution of sum, for sum(2), and the stack pointer is adjusted in the reverse direction. Then the returned value 1 is added to its n, and 3 is returned. The saved address is used to go back to the previous execution, and the stack pointer is again adjusted in the reverse direction. This continues until the original sum(5) is executing again. It returns 15 and uses the saved address to go back to main.
How this code backtracks itself afterwards..?
It doesn't certainly work.
Any success is due to undefined behavior (UB).
The biggest mistake is not compiling with a well enabled compiler.
int sum(int n)
{
if(n==1)
{
return 1;
}
int sumNm1=sum(n-1); //sum of 1 to n
int sumN=sumNm1+n; // !! What, no warning?
} // !! What, no warning?
A well enabled compiler generates warnings something like the below.
warning: unused variable 'sumN' [-Wunused-variable]
warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
Save time and enable all compiler warnings. You get faster feedback to code troubles than posting on SO.
int sumN=sumNm1+n;
return sumN; // Add
}
Like pointed in comments, the problem is that you don't return the value you compute from within the function (Undefined Behavior). You calculate it correctly (but in a clumsy way, using 2 unneeded variables). If you add a return sumN; statement at the end of the function, things should be fine.
Also, the type chosen for the return value is not the best one. You should choose:
An unsigned type (as we are talking about natural numbers), otherwise half of its interval would be simply wasted (on negative values which won't be used)
One that's as large as possible (uint64_t). Note that this only allows larger values to be computed, but does not eliminate the possibility of an overflow, so you should also be careful when choosing the input type (uint32_t)
More details on recursion: [Wikipedia]: Recursion (it also contains an example very close to yours: factorial).
Example:
main00.c:
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#if defined(_WIN32)
# define PC064U_FMT "%llu"
# define PC064UX_FMT "0x%016llX"
#else
# define PC064U_FMT "%lu"
# define PC064UX_FMT "0x%016lX"
#endif
uint64_t sum(uint32_t n) // Just 3 lines of code
{
if (n < 2)
return n;
return n + sum(n - 1);
}
uint64_t sum_gauss(uint32_t n)
{
if (n == (uint32_t)-1)
return (uint64_t)(n - 1) / 2 * n + n;
return n % 2 ? (uint64_t)(n + 1) / 2 * n : (uint64_t)n / 2 * (n + 1);
}
uint64_t sum_acc(uint32_t n, uint64_t acc)
{
if (n == 0)
return acc;
return sum_acc(n - 1, acc + n);
}
int main()
{
uint32_t numbers[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 254, 255, 1000, 100000, (uint32_t)-2, (uint32_t)-1 };
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(numbers) / sizeof(numbers[0]); ++i) {
uint64_t res = sum_gauss(numbers[i]);
printf("\nsum_gauss(%u): "PC064U_FMT" ("PC064UX_FMT")\n", numbers[i], res, res);
res = sum_acc(numbers[i], 0);
printf(" sum_acc(%u): "PC064U_FMT" ("PC064UX_FMT")\n", numbers[i], res, res);
res = sum(numbers[i]);
printf(" sum(%u): "PC064U_FMT" ("PC064UX_FMT")\n", numbers[i], res, res);
}
printf("\nDone.\n\n");
return 0;
}
Notes:
I added Gauss's formula (sum_gauss) to calculate the same thing using just simple arithmetic operations (and thus is waaay faster)
Another thing about recursion: although it's a nice technique (very useful for learning), it's not so practical (because each function call eats up stack), and if function calls itself many times, the stack will eventually run out (StackOverflow). A recurrent call can be worked around that using an optimization - with the help of an accumulator (check [Wikipedia]: Tail call or [SO]: What is tail call optimization?). I added sum_acc to illustrate this
Didn't consider necessary to also add the iterative variant (as it would only be a simple for loop)
Output:
(qaic-env) [cfati#cfati-5510-0:/mnt/e/Work/Dev/StackOverflow/q074798666]> ~/sopr.sh
### Set shorter prompt to better fit when pasted in StackOverflow (or other) pages ###
[064bit prompt]> ls
main00.c vs2022
[064bit prompt]> gcc -O2 -o exe main00.c
[064bit prompt]> ./exe
sum_gauss(0): 0 (0x0000000000000000)
sum_acc(0): 0 (0x0000000000000000)
sum(0): 0 (0x0000000000000000)
sum_gauss(1): 1 (0x0000000000000001)
sum_acc(1): 1 (0x0000000000000001)
sum(1): 1 (0x0000000000000001)
sum_gauss(2): 3 (0x0000000000000003)
sum_acc(2): 3 (0x0000000000000003)
sum(2): 3 (0x0000000000000003)
sum_gauss(3): 6 (0x0000000000000006)
sum_acc(3): 6 (0x0000000000000006)
sum(3): 6 (0x0000000000000006)
sum_gauss(5): 15 (0x000000000000000F)
sum_acc(5): 15 (0x000000000000000F)
sum(5): 15 (0x000000000000000F)
sum_gauss(10): 55 (0x0000000000000037)
sum_acc(10): 55 (0x0000000000000037)
sum(10): 55 (0x0000000000000037)
sum_gauss(254): 32385 (0x0000000000007E81)
sum_acc(254): 32385 (0x0000000000007E81)
sum(254): 32385 (0x0000000000007E81)
sum_gauss(255): 32640 (0x0000000000007F80)
sum_acc(255): 32640 (0x0000000000007F80)
sum(255): 32640 (0x0000000000007F80)
sum_gauss(1000): 500500 (0x000000000007A314)
sum_acc(1000): 500500 (0x000000000007A314)
sum(1000): 500500 (0x000000000007A314)
sum_gauss(100000): 5000050000 (0x000000012A06B550)
sum_acc(100000): 5000050000 (0x000000012A06B550)
sum(100000): 5000050000 (0x000000012A06B550)
sum_gauss(4294967294): 9223372030412324865 (0x7FFFFFFE80000001)
sum_acc(4294967294): 9223372030412324865 (0x7FFFFFFE80000001)
sum(4294967294): 9223372030412324865 (0x7FFFFFFE80000001)
sum_gauss(4294967295): 9223372034707292160 (0x7FFFFFFF80000000)
sum_acc(4294967295): 9223372034707292160 (0x7FFFFFFF80000000)
sum(4294967295): 9223372034707292160 (0x7FFFFFFF80000000)
Done.
As seen in the image above, the simple implementation (sum) failed while the other 2 passed (for a certain (big) input value). Not sure though why it didn't also fail on Linux (WSL), most likely one of the optimizations (from -O2) enabled tail-end-recursion (or increased the stack?).
If I understand your question correctly, you're more interested in how recursion actually works, than in the error produced by the missing return statement (see any of the other answers).
So here's my personal guide to understanding recurive functions.
If you know about Mathematical Induction, this might help understand how recursion works (a least it did for me). You prove a base case(, make an assumption about a fixed value) and prove the statement for a following number. In programming we do a very similar thing.
Firstly, identify your base cases, i.e. some input to the function that you know what the output is. In your example this is
if(n==1)
{
return 1;
}
Now, we need to find a way to compute the value for any given input from "smaller" inputs; in this case sum(n) = sum(n-1) +n.
How does backtracking work after the base case has been reached?
To understand this, picture the function call sum(2).
We first find that 2 does not match our base case, so we recursively call the function with sum(2-1). You can imagine this recursive call as the function called with sum(2) halting until sum(1) has returned a result. Now sum(1) is the "active" function, and we find that it matches our base case, so we return 1. This is now returned to where sum(2) has waited for the result, and this function now can compute 2 + sum(1), because we got the result from the recursive call.
This goes on like this for every recursive call, that is made.
Interested in a bit more low-level explanation?
In assembly (MIPS), your code would look something like this:
sum:
addi $t1, $0, 1 # store '1' in $t0
beq $a0, $t0, base # IF n == 1: GOTO base
# ELSE:
# prepare for recursive call:
sw $a0, 4($sp) # write n on top of the stack
sw %ra, 8($sp) # write the line of the caller on top of stack
addi $sp, $sp, 8 # advance stack pointer
addi $a0, $a0, -1 # n = n-1
jal sum # call sum with reduced n
# this is executed AFTER the recursive call
addi $sp, $sp, -8 # reset stack pointer
lw %ra, 8($sp) # load where to exit the function
lw %a0, 4($sp) # load the original n this instance of sum got
add %v0, %a0, %v0 # add our n to the result of sum(n-1)
jr %ra # return to wherever sum() was called
base: # this is only executed when base case is reached
add %v0, %0, %t1 # write '1' as return statement of base case
jr %ra # reutrn to caller
Anytime the recursive function is called, we temporarily store the argument the current function got ($a0) and the calling function ($ra) on the stack. That's basically a LIFO storage, and we can access the top of it using the stack pointer $sp. So when we enter recursion, we want to make room on the stack for whatever we need to store there by advancing the stack pointer(addi $sp, $sp, 8); we can now store whatever we need there.
When this is done, we manipulate the argument we got (function arguments are always stored in $a0 in MIPS so we need to overwrite the argument we got). We write n-1 as argument for our recursive call and proceed to 'jump and lin' (jal) to the beginning of the function. This jumps to the provided label (start of our function) and saves the current line of code in $ra so we can return here after the function call. For every recursive call we make, the stack grows, because we store our data there, so we need to remember to reset it lateron.
Once a function call gets the argument 1, the programm jumps to base, we can simply write 1 into the designated return register ($v0), and jump back to the line of code we were called from.
This is the line where we used jal to jump back to the beginning. Since the called function provided the result of the base case in $v0,we can simply add our argument to $v0and return. However we first need to recover the argument and the return address from the stack. We also decrement the stack pointer, so that it is in the exact position where it was when the function was called. Therefore all recursive calls work together to compute the overall result; every idividual call has it's own storage on the stack, but it also ensures to tidy up before exiting, so that all the other calls can access their respective data.
The takeaway is: When calling a function recursively, execution jumps back to the beginning of the function with altered arguments. However, every individual function call handles their own set of variables (temporarily store on the stack). After a recursive call returns a value, the next most-inner recursive call becomes active, re-loads all their variables and computes the next result.
If this program were implemented correctly, it would work like this: When n is 1, the function returns 1. When n is 2, the function calls itself for n is 1, so it gets 1, and then adds n (i.e., 2) to it. When n is 3, the function calls itself for n is 2, so it gets 3, and then adds n (i.e., 3) to it. And so on.

Interesting return behavior of C function [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Why and how does GCC compile a function with a missing return statement?
(8 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have a function which takes in a mathematical operation in the form of a char array, returning an int result (this all works, and is purely for context, not really related to the question).
Naturally, my function definition is: int calc(char* operation) {} which expects an int to be returned.
After parsing the string to determine the operands and the operation to be performed, I assign the result to a variable. I just realized that I had forgotten to put the return statement in the function, and yet I was still getting the correct results...
Here is the function. I had forgotten the last line originally.
// Function to return int results of operation specified in char* (argv[1])
int calc(char* operation)
{
int op_index = 0;
int end_index = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 128; i ++)
{
if ((operation[i] < 48 || operation[i] > 57) && op_index == 0)
op_index = i;
if (operation[i] == '\0')
{
end_index = i;
i = 128;
}
}
int opa = 0;
int opb = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < op_index; i ++)
opa += (operation[i]-48)*power(10, op_index - (i+1));
for (int i = op_index+1; i < end_index; i ++)
opb += (operation[i]-48)*power(10, end_index - (i+1));
int res = 0;
if (operation[op_index] == '+')
res = opa + opb;
else if (operation[op_index] == '-')
res = opa - opb;
else if (operation[op_index] == '*')
res = opa * opb;
else if (operation[op_index] == '/')
res = opa / opb;
else if (operation[op_index] == '%')
res = opa % opb;
// This is the line that I had forgotten... but still got the right results when calling this function
return res;
}
Does anyone have an explanation for this? My guess is that it is returning, by default, the result of the last function call, which would be correct because of the if/else structure of the final statements.
Thanks!
Technically undefined behavior.
If this is x86 Intel, what is likely happening is that the math operations performed prior to returning from the function are just happening to be leaving the intended return value in the EAX register. And for functions that return integers, the EAX register is also how the return value gets passed back to the caller.
Tail end of your calc function has generated assembly that looks like this:
int res = 0;
mov dword ptr [res],0
if (operation[op_index] == '+')
mov eax,dword ptr [operation]
add eax,dword ptr [op_index] // MATH OPERATION WINDS UP IN EAX REGISTER
movsx ecx,byte ptr [eax]
cmp ecx,2Bh
jne calc+149h (05719F9h)
And invoking code like this:
int x;
x = calc((char*)"4+5");
printf("%d\n", x);
Generated assembly is this
x = calc((char*)"4+5");
push offset string "4+5" (0E87B30h)
call _calc (0E8128Ah)
add esp,4
mov dword ptr [x],eax // TAKE EAX AS RESULT OF FUNCTION AND ASSIGN TO X
But the moment I switch the project settings from debug build to optimized retail, all bets are off. The compiler and linker will start inlining assembly, making crazy optimizations, etc... and it will even optimize around the fact that the function isn't returning anything... As a matter of fact, it will generate an error near the printf statement complaining that x is uninitialized even though it explicitly was assigned to from the result of calc.
So the short answer is that you are getting lucky. But I wanted to point how why it "just happens to work".
With the exception of the main function, any function that is defined to return a value must do so. If it does not, and the calling function attempts to use the returned value, you invoked undefined behavior.
This is specified in section 6.9.1p12 of the C standard:
If the } that terminates a function is reached, and the value of the
function call is used by the caller, the behavior is undefined.
In this case, you got "lucky" that the program happened to work, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case. A seemingly unrelated change to your program can change how undefined behavior will manifest itself.

What can I do to optimize the following code?

int FindingMoves(int input1) {
int result = 0;
int input2 = input1 + 1;
result = (2 * input2 + 1) * (2 * input2 + 1);
return result;
}
What should I do to optimize the above C program which must be considered as efficient?
Should I use another programming language to a better result for above program maybe Java8, C++?
One way to optimize a code is to let the compiler do the job for you.
Consider different versions of the same function:
int Finding_Moves(int input)
{
++input;
input *= 2;
++input;
return input * input;
}
int Finding__Moves(int input1)
{
int input2 = 2*(input1 + 1) + 1;
return input2*input2;
}
int FindingMoves(int input1)
{
int result = 0;
int input2 = input1 + 1;
result = (2*input2 + 1)*(2*input2 + 1);
return result;
}
In all cases the generated assembly is the same:
lea eax, [rdi+3+rdi]
imul eax, eax
ret
HERE
Very little need to optimize this simple code, but alas:
int FindingMoves(int input1)
{
int input2 = 2*(input1 + 1) + 1;
return input2*input2;
}
If you are interested in micro-optimization, you can play with Godbolt's fantastic Compiler Explorer
For example both gcc -O2 and clang -O2 compile your code into just 2 instructions:
FindingMoves(int): # #FindingMoves(int)
lea eax, [rdi + rdi + 3]
imul eax, eax
ret
You could rewrite the source to make it more readable, but modern compilers already squeeze every bit of performance from it.
I personally would write:
int FindingMoves(int input) {
int x = 2 * (input + 1) + 1;
return x * x;
}
Be aware that optimizing a tiny piece of code like this is not worth it, first get the full program to perform correctly and use an extensive test suite to verify that. Then improve your code to make it more readable, more secure, more reliable, and still fully correct as verified by the test suite.
Then, if measured performance is not satisfactory, write performance tests with benchmark data and use a profiler to identify areas of improvement.
Focussing on optimization too soon is called premature optimization, a condition that causes frustration at many levels.
Without resorting to assember, the simple optimisation is
int FindingMoves(int input1)
{
int term = 2*input1 + 3;
return term*term;
}
Two multiplications, one addition, and then the result is returned. And it's simple enough that any decent quality compiler can produce effective output quite easily.
I'd want to see significant evidence from test cases and profiling before I would try to optimise further.

Count number of digits recursively

In order to learn recursion, I want to count the number of decimal digits that compose an integer. For didactic purposes, hence, I would like to not use the functions from math.h, as presented in:
Finding the length of an integer in C
How do I determine the number of digits of an integer in C? .
I tried two ways, based on the assumption that the division of an integer by 10 will, at a certain point, result in 0.
The first works correctly. count2(1514, 1) returns 4:
int count2(int n, int i){
if(n == 0)
return 0;
else
return i + count2(n / 10, i);
}
But I would like to comprehend the behavior of this one:
int count3(int n, int i){
if(n / 10 != 0)
return i + count3(n / 10, i);
}
For example, from count3(1514, 1); I expect this:
1514 / 10 = 151; # i = 1 + 1
151 / 10 = 15; # i = 2 + 1
15 / 10 = 1; # i = 3 + 1
1 / 10 = 0; # Stop!
Unexpectedly, the function returns 13 instead of 4. Should not the function recurse only 3 times? What is the actual necessity of a base case of the same kind of count2()?
If you do not provide a return statement the result is indeterminate.
On most architectures that mean your function returns random data that happens to be present on the stack or service registers.
So, your count3() function is returning random data when n / 10 == 0 because there is no corresponding return statement.
Edit: it must be stressed that most modern compilers are able to warn when a typed function does not cover all exit points with a return statement.
For example, GCC 4.9.2 will silently accept the missing return. But if you provide it the -Wreturn-type compiler switch you will get a 'warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]' warning message. Clang 3.5.0, by comparison, will by default give you a similar warning message: 'warning: control may reach end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]'. Personally I try to work using -Wall -pedantic unless some required 3rd party forces me to disable some specific switch.
In recursion there should be base conditions which is the building block of recursive solution. Your recursion base doesn't return any value when n==0 — so the returned value is indeterminate. So your recursion count3 fails.
Not returning value in a value-returning function is Undefined behavior. You should be warned on this behavior
Your logic is also wrong. You must return 1 when `(n >= 0 && n / 10 == 0) and
if(n / 10 != 0)
return i + count3(n / 10, i);
else if (n >= 0) return 1;
else return 0;
I don't think you need that i+count() in the recursion. Just 1+count() can work fine...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static int count(), BASE=(10);
int main ( int argc, char *argv[] ) {
int num = (argc>1?atoi(argv[1]):9999);
BASE= (argc>2?atoi(argv[2]):BASE);
printf(" #digits in %d(base%d) is %d\n", num,BASE,count(num)); }
int count ( int num ) { return ( num>0? 1+count(num/BASE) : 0 ); }
...seems to work fine for me. For example,
bash-4.3$ ./count 987654
#digits in 987654(base10) is 6
bash-4.3$ ./count 123454321
#digits in 123454321(base10) is 9
bash-4.3$ ./count 1024 2
#digits in 1024(base2) is 11
bash-4.3$ ./count 512 2
#digits in 512(base2) is 10

How does recursion work in C?

I'm trying to understand how recursion works in C. Can anyone give me an explanation of the control flow?
#include <stdio.h>
/* printd: print n in decimal */
void printd(int n)
{
if (n < 0)
{
putchar('-');
n = -n;
}
if (n / 10) printd(n / 10);
putchar(n % 10 + '0');
}
int main()
{
printd(123);
return 0;
}
The control flow looks like this (where -> is a function call)
main()
└─> printd(123)
├─> printd(12)
│ ├─> printd(1)
│ │ └─> putchar('1')
│ └─> putchar('2')
└─> putchar('3')
Call printd(123)
(123 / 10) != 0, so Call printd(12)
(12 / 10) != 0, so Call printd(1)
(1 / 10) == 0, so Call putchar "1"
Call putchar "2"
Call putchar "3"
return 0 (from main())
To understand recursion, you need to understand the storage model. Though there are several variations, basically "automatic" storage, the storage used to contain automatic variables, parameters, compiler temps, and call/return information, is arranged as a "stack". This is a storage structure starting at some location in process storage and "growing" either "up" (increasing addresses) or "down" (decreasing addresses) as procedures are called.
One might start out with a couple of variables:
00 -- Variable A -- 27
01 -- Variable B -- 45
Then we decide to call procedure X, so we generate a parameter of A+B:
02 -- Parameter -- 72
We need to save the location where we want control to return. Say instruction 104 is the call, so we'll make 105 the return address:
03 -- Return address -- 105
We also need to save the size of the above "stack frame" -- four words, 5 with the frame size itself:
04 -- Frame size -- 5
Now we begin executing in X. It needs a variable C:
05 -- Variable C -- 123
And it needs to reference the parameter. But how does it do that? Well, on entry a stack pointer was set to point at the "bottom" of X's "stack frame". We could make the "bottom" be any of several places, but let's make it the first variable in X's frame.
05 -- Variable C -- 123 <=== (Stack frame pointer = 5)
But we still need to reference the parameter. We know that "below" our frame (where the stack frame pointer is pointing) are (in decreasing address order) the frame size, return address, and then our parameter. So if we subtract 3 (for those 3 values) from 5 we get 2, which is the location of the parameter.
Note that at this point we don't really care if our frame pointer is 5 or 55555 -- we just subtract to reference parameters, add to reference our local variables. If we want to make a call we "stack" parameters, return address, and frame size, as we did with the first call. We could make call after call after call and just continue "pushing" stack frames.
To return we, load the frame size and the return address into registers. Subtract frame size from the stack frame pointer and put the return address into the instruction counter and we're back in the calling procedure.
Now this is an over-simplification, and there are numerous different ways to handle the stack frame pointer, parameter passing, and keeping track of frame size. But the basics apply regardless.
You have recursion in C (or any other programming language) by breaking a problem into 2 smaller problems.
Your example: print a number can be broken in these 2 parts
print the first part if it exists
print the last digit
To print "123", the simpler problems are then to print "12" (12 is 123 / 10) and to print "3".
To print "12", the simpler problems are then to print "1" (1 is 12 / 10) and to print "2".
To print "1", ... just print "1".
#include <stdio.h>
#define putd(d) (printf("%d", d))
#define RECURSIVE
void rprint(int n)
{
#ifndef RECURSIVE
int i = n < 0 ? -n : n;
for (; i / 10; i /= 10)
putd(i % 10);
putd(i % 10);
if (n < 0)
putchar('-');
/* Don't forget to reverse :D */
#else
if (n < 0) {
n = -n;
putchar('-');
}
int i = n / 10;
if (i)
rprint(i);
putd(n % 10);
#endif
}
int main()
{
rprint(-321);
return 0;
}
Recursion works on stack i.e, first in last out.
Recursion is a process of calling itself with different parameters until a base condition is achieved. Stack overflow occurs when too many recursive calls are performed.
Code:
main()
{print f ("stat");
main();
print f ("end") ;
}
Code:
main()
{int n, res;
pf("enter n value");
sf("%d",&n);
=fact(n);
}
int fact(int n)
{int res;
if(n==0)
{
res=1;
}
else
{
res = n*fact (n-1);
}
return res;
}

Resources