I'm using C language, for the below code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
int num1=0;
int res = ++num1 && num1++;
printf("%d\t%d\n",num1,res);
}
In the above code I get output as 2 1. I think the output should be 2 0.
Please correct me if wrong, to solve this statement, the num1++(0) would be executed first due to highest precedence and then ++num1(2) would be executed and then at last && will be preformed because it has the lowest precedence.
Please comment how is this statement getting executed.
In some of the tutorials I find that postfix ++ and prefix ++ have the same precedence, but if that is true then according to the associativity rule again num1++ should be executed first(right to left) which should again lead to answer as 2 0.
In the expression used as an initializer
int res = ++num1 && num1++;
there is a sequence point for the operator &&.
From the C Standard (6.5.13 Logical AND operator)
3 The && operator shall yield 1 if both of its operands compare
unequal to 0; otherwise, it yields 0. The result has type int.
and
4 Unlike the bitwise binary & operator, the && operator guarantees
left-to-right evaluation; if the second operand is evaluated, there is
a sequence point between the evaluations of the first and second
operands. If the first operand compares equal to 0, the second operand
is not evaluated.
At first the left operand of the operator is evaluated and as a result num1 will be equal to 1 due to the unary (prefix) increment operator. As the sub-expression is not equal to 0 then the second operand is evaluated. Its value is the value before incrementing that is 1. As this second operand is also unequal to 0 then the whole expression is evaluated to the logical true and its value is 1 (see the first quote from the C Standard).
This value 1 is assigned to the variable res while the variable num1 after the postfix increment will be equal to 2.
So you will have that after this declaration res is equal to 1 and num1 is equal to 2.
Lots of misconceptions here. First of all, operator precedence states the order of parsing, not the order of execution. There are two related but different terms, operator precedence and order of evaluation.
See What is the difference between operator precedence and order of evaluation?.
Once you understand order of evaluation, the && operator specifically comes with well-defined sequencing, which isn't normally the case for C operators. It guarantees a left-to-right order of evaluation. C17 6.5.14/4:
Unlike the bitwise | operator, the || operator guarantees left-to-right evaluation; if the
second operand is evaluated, there is a sequence point between the evaluations of the first
and second operands. If the first operand compares unequal to 0, the second operand is
not evaluated.
Normally, you wouldn't be able to wild and crazy things with the ++ operator mixed with other operators, but the above && rule makes it possible in this specific case.
See Why can't we mix increment operators like i++ with other operators? It explains sequencing/sequence points.
In some of the tutorials I find that postfix ++ and prefix ++ have the same precedence,
They don't, prefix ++ takes precedence over postfix (and other unary operators). So associativity does not apply.
Please correct me if wrong, to solve this statement, the num1++(0) would be executed first due to highest precedence and then ++num1(2) would be executed and then at last && will be preformed because it has the lowest precedence.
Precedence only controls which operators are grouped with which operands - it does not affect the order in which expressions are evaluated.
The &&, ||, ?:, and comma operator all force left-to-right evaluation - the left operand is fully evaluated (and any side effects applied) before the right operand. && and || both short circuit - for &&, the right operand will be evaluated only if the left operand is non-zero.
The unary (prefix) ++ operator yields the current value of the operand plus 1, so the result of ++num1 is 1. As a side effect the value in num1 is incremented. Since this result is non-zero, num1++ is also evaluated. The postfix ++ operator yields the current value of the operand, so the result of num1++ is 1. As a side effect the value in num1 is incremented.
The result of an && expression is 1 if both operands are non-zero, 0 otherwise.
It's roughly equivalent to writing
tmp = num1 + 1;
num1 = num1 + 1;
res = 0;
if ( tmp != 0 )
{
if ( num1 != 0 )
{
res = 1;
}
}
num1 = num1 + 1;
So the result of ++num1 && num1++ is 1, and the value stored in num1 at the end of it is 2.
In some of the tutorials I find that postfix ++ and prefix ++ have the same precedence,
That is very wrong and you should stop using those tutorials immediately. Postfix operators have higher precedence than unary operators - *a++ is parsed as *(a++), ++a[i] is parsed as ++(a[i]), etc. An expression like ++i++ would be parsed as ++(i++), but you can't write such an expression in C - the result of i++ isn't an lvalue and cannot be the operand of a unary ++ like that.
Related
() has the highest priority, why is it short-circuited?
int a = 1, b = 0;
(--a)&&(b++);
Why is (b++) still short-circuited?
I don't find the term "short-circuit" particularly helpful.
It is better to say that && and || have left-to-right order of evaluation. The C standard (6.5.13) actually explains this well:
the && operator guarantees left-to-right evaluation ...
If the first operand compares equal to 0, the second
operand is not evaluated.
And that's it. The left operand --a evaluates to 0.
What is the difference between operator precedence and order of evaluation?
In this case, all that matters is order of evaluation. Operator precedence only guarantees that the expression is parsed as expected - which operands that "glue" to which operator.
The expression (--a) uses the prefix operator and evaluates to 0. This is false and the 2nd expression is not evaluated due to short-circuit as you noted.
To understand consider the following expression
a * b + c * d
If to assume that the operands of the operator + are evaluated from left to right then at first the expression a * b will be evaluated and then the expression c * d.
The assumption relative to the order of evaluations of operands of the operator + is not valid. But it is valid for the operator &&.
So left operand of the expression
(--a)&&(b++);
is evaluated first. And if its value is not equal to 0 then the second operand is evaluated.
From the C Standard (6.5.13 Logical AND operator)
4 Unlike the bitwise binary & operator, the && operator guarantees
left-to-right evaluation; if the second operand is evaluated, there
is a sequence point between the evaluations of the first and second
operands. If the first operand compares equal to 0, the second operand
is not evaluated.
You are right that you can override operator precedence using parenthesis ().
For example, the expression
a && b || c
is equivalent to
(a && b) || c,
because && has a higher precedence than ||. You can override this precedence by changing it to
a && (b || c)
so that now the || has precedence over &&.
However, operator procedence doesn't change the behavior of the individual operators. In particular, both operators will still use short-circuiting. So, even if || has higher precedence than &&, the && operator will still evaluate its left-hand operand before its right-hand operand.
In both of my examples above, the && operator will still evalulate a before evaluating b or (b || c). Operator precedence will only affect whether the right-hand operand of the && operator is the expression b or (b || c).
Therefore, in your example, by writing (--a)&&(b++) instead of --a&&b++, you are merely ensuring that the -- and ++ operators have precedence over the && operator. This is not necessary, because he C language specifies that these operators already have precedence.
In the hypothetical scenario that the C language had instead specified that the && operator had precedence over the -- and ++ operators, then the expression --a&&b++ would be interpreted as --(a&&b)++, and it would be necessary to write (--a)&&(b++) to prevent this interpretation. But this is not the case.
In the following code, I am getting 10 | 1 | 1 as a result. But according to precedence rules shouldn't 'and' operator must be evaluated first?(and yield c=9) Like : d = a || (--b)&&(--c) since 'and' has higher precedence. ( or shortcutting breaks precedence rules ?)Thanks in advance.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(){
int a,b,c,d;
a =1;
b = c = 10;
d = a|| --b&&--c;
printf("%d\n",c);
printf("%d\n",a);
printf("%d\n",d);
return 0;
}
Precedence and order of evaluation are two different things. From Logical OR
documentation (emphasis mine):
There is a sequence point after the evaluation of lhs. If the result of lhs compares unequal to zero, then rhs is not evaluated at all (so-called short-circuit evaluation).
In case of exp1 || exp2, exp1 is always evaluated first as there is a sequence point after it and if exp1 is non-zero then exp2 is not evaluated.
Precedence only determines which operands are grouped with which operators - it does not control the order in which expressions are evaluated.
In your example, it means the expression is parsed as
a || (––b && ––c)
Both || and && force left-to-right evaluation1. Both introduce a sequence point (IOW, the left hand operand will be evaluated and all side effects will be applied before the right hand operand is evaluated).
Both operators short-circuit - if the left operand of || evaluates to non-zero, then the result of the expression is 1 (true) regardless of the value of the right operand, so the right operand isn’t evaluated at all. If the left operand of && is 0, then the result of the expression is 0 (false) regardless of the value of the right operand, so the right operand isn’t evaluated at all.
In your expression, a is evaluated first. It has a non-zero value (1), so ––b && ––c is not evaluated.
Along with the ?: and comma operators. All other operators (arithmetic, equality, subscript, etc.) do not force a particular order of evaluation.
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int i=-1, j=-1, k=-1, l=2, m;
m = (i++ && j++ && k++) || (l++);
printf("%d %d %d %d %d", i, j, k, l, m);
}
I am having confusions about how operator precedence is working in the evaluation of the logical expression in the given program.
The variable m will be assigned 0 or 1 depending on the value of the logical expression that follows it.
The first parenthesis will be evaluated and the overall result of two AND operations will be true or 1. But, since a short-circuit logical OR is used, the second parenthesis is not getting evaluated.
So, my question is if parentheses have higher precedence that all the other operators in that expression, why is not both the parentheses evaluated first, and then the OR operation performed?
That is, why is the output 0 0 0 2 1 and not 0 0 0 3 1?
EDIT:
What I have asked is somewhat different from this (suggested duplicate)
as I am emphasizing on the parentheses enclosing the second operand of OR operator.
Operator precedence comes into effect when there's an ambiguity.
In this case, the spec is quite clear.
The || operator shall yield 1 if either of its operands compare unequal to 0; otherwise, it
yields 0. The result has type int.
and, (emphasis mine)
Unlike the bitwise | operator, the || operator guarantees left-to-right evaluation; if the
second operand is evaluated, there is a sequence point between the evaluations of the first
and second operands. If the first operand compares unequal to 0, the second operand is
not evaluated.
In your case,
(i++ && j++ && k++) || (l++);
(i++ && j++ && k++) is the left operand and (l++); is the right operand and the rest should be quite clear. :)
Operator precedence (and associativity) only determines how the expression should be parsed. It is a common mistake to confuse it with order of evaluation of the operands, which is different thing. Operator precedence is rather irrelevant in this example.
For most operators in C, the order of evaluation of the operands is not specified. Had you written true | l++ then l++ would have been executed. The "short-circuit evaluation" is the reason why this doesn't happen in your code. The && || operators is a special case, since they explicitly define the order of evaluation. The right operand of || is guaranteed not to be evaluated in case the left operand evaluates to non-zero.
I have executed the following code in Code::Blocks 10.05 on Windows 7.
int a=0,b=0,c;
c=a++&&b++;
printf("\na=%d\nb=%d\nc=%d\n\n",a,b,c);
The output I obtained is given below,
a=1
b=0
c=0
This makes perfect sense because of short circuit evaluation.
The expression a++ is post increment and 0 is returned to the logical and (&&). Hence the part b++ is not evaluated since both 0 && 0 and
0 && 1 evaluates to 0.
But here arises my doubt. The precedence value of operators clearly states that ++ is having higher precedence over &&. So my understanding was like this, both a++ and b++ are evaluated and then && only checks the result of expression a++ to come to a decision. But this has not happened only a++ is evaluated here.
What is the reason for this behavior? Does && being a sequence point has something to do with this behavior? If so why we say that && is having lower precedence than ++?
You are confused about precedence and order of evaluation.
Precedence defines how the operators are grouped, i.e
c = a++ && b++;
is equivalent to:
c = ((a++) && (b++));
Order of evaluation defines how the expression is evaluated, the short circuit of && means a++ is evaluated first, if it's zero, the end; if it's not zero, b++ is then evaluated.
As another example:
c = (a++) + (b++);
Is a++ evaluated before b++? The answer is we don't know. Most operators don't define the order of evaluation. && is one of the few operators that do define. (The rest are ||, , and ?:)
There are two concepts here - order of precedence and order of evaluation. Order of precedence will have an impact only if an expression (or sub-expression) is evaluated.
In general, the order of evaluation is not sequenced. Given an operator, its operands can be evaluated in any order. The arguments of a function can be evaluated in any order.
From the C++ Standard:
1.9 Program execution
15 Except where noted, evaluations of operands of individual operators and of subexpressions of individual expressions are unsequenced.
and
8.3.6 Default arguments
9 Default arguments are evaluated each time the function is called. The order of evaluation of function arguments is unspecified.
For the logical AND operator, &&, the C++11 standard says:
5.14 Logical AND operator
1 The && operator groups left-to-right. The operands are both contextually converted to type bool (Clause 4). The result is true if both operands are true and false otherwise. Unlike &, && guarantees left-to-right evaluation: the second operand is not evaluated if the first operand is false.
Similar exception is specified for the logical OR operator, ||.
Since b++ is not evaluated due to short circuiting of the expression because of && operator, the order of precedence of the operators has no significance in this particular case.
when explaining constant expressions, the standard (well, draft N1570) gives thi "enlightening" example:
118)
Thus, in the following initialization,
static int i = 2 || 1 / 0;
the expression is a valid integer constant expression with value one.
How is this expression evaluated?
The logical or, || always returns either 0 or 1. First its left operand is evaluated, then, if the evaluation of the left operand resulted in 0, the right operand is evaluated and the value of the expression is 0 if the right operand also evaluates to 0, 1 otherwise. If the evaluation of the left operand resulted in a nonzero value, the entire expression evaluates to 1 without evaluating the right operand.
The precedence of the division operator / is higher than the precedence of the logical or, the expression
2 || 1 / 0
is implicitly parenthesized
2 || (1 / 0)
As an expression-tree:
(||)
/ \
2 (/)
/ \
1 0
The precedence determines the shape of the tree, but the order of evaluation is independent from the precedence (except insofar as the precedence determines data-dependencies). For some operators (||, &&, ?:, ,), the order of evaluation of the operands is specified [and the right operands of || and && aren't evaluated at all if the result is already determined after evaluation of the left operand, and of the second and third operands of ?:, only one is evaluated - which one is determined by the evaluation of the first operand], generally the order of evaluation of the children of an operator-node is unspecified.
Since the left operand of || in
static int i = 2 || (1 / 0);
(the constant expression 2) evaluates to a nonzero value, the evaluation of the expression stops there and the value of
2 || 1 / 0
is 1.
The evaluation of || is specified in section 6.5.14, paragraph 4:
Unlike the bitwise | operator, the || operator guarantees left-to-right evaluation; if the second operand is evaluated, there is a sequence point between the evaluations of the first and second operands. If the first operand compares unequal to 0, the second operand is not evaluated.
and its return value ibid, paragraph 3:
The || operator shall yield 1 if either of its operands compare unequal to 0; otherwise, it yields 0. The result has type int.