I'm trying to separate the numbers of a sequence, and store them all in an array.
For what the little I have seen of C, I am doing nothing wrong, and the program compiles perfectly, but the moment it goes to print the numbers, it just doesn't work.
The explanation of what I'm trying to do is in the end.
long int number;
do
{
number = get_long("number:\n");
}
while (number<1 || number>9999999999999999);
int numbers[16], n;
//We separate the numbers, from right to left
for (long int I=10; I>100000000000000000; I*=10)
{
for (long int J=1; J>100000000000000000; J*=10)
{
for (n=0; n>16; n++)
{
numbers[n]=(number%I)/J;
}
}
}
printf("%i\n", numbers[1]);
It is supposed to accept numbers of 1 digit up until 16 digits, and separate each digit.
For example, if we had 16, it would separate 1 and 6 into two digits, making the 6 the first digit, and the 1 the second, so it would start counting from right to left. It's supposed to store each digit in an array of 16 spaces. Then I would just print the second digit, just to make sure it does work, but when I run it, it just gives me 0; meaning it doesn't work, but I see no problem with it.
It probably is that I'm either too inexperienced, or I don't have the necessary knowledge, to be able to see the problem in the code.
You have incorrect loop termination checks, so the loops are never entered.
After reversing > to <, you end up evaluating the body of the inner loop 16*16*16 = 4096 times even though there are only 16 digits. There should only be one loop of 16 iterations.
A long int is not is only guaranteed to support numbers up to 2,147,483,647. Instead, use one of long long int, int_least64_t or int64_t, or one of their unsigned counterparts.
You were attempting to write the following:
uint64_t mod = 10; // Formerly named I
uint64_t div = 1; // Formerly named J
for (int n=0; n<16; ++n) {
numbers[n] = ( number % mod ) / div;
mod *= 10;
div *= 10;
}
Demo
But that's a bit more complicated than needed. Let's swap the order of the division and modulus.
uint64_t div = 1;
for (int n=0; n<16; ++n) {
numbers[n] = ( number / div ) % 10;
div *= 10;
}
Demo
Finally, we can simplify a bit more if we don't mind clobbering number in the process.
for (int n=0; n<16; ++n) {
numbers[n] = number % 10;
number /= 10;
}
Demo
All of your for loops are using operator> when they should be using operator< instead. Thus the loop conditions are always false (10 is not > than 100000000000000000, 1 is not > than 100000000000000000, 0 is not > than 16), so the loops don't get entered at all, and thus numbers[] is left unfilled.
Fixing that, you still have a logic problem. Think of what the result of (number%I)/J is when number is 16 and I and J are large values. The result of operator/ is typically 0! On some loop iterations, numbers[] gets populated with correct values. But other iterations will then overwrite numbers[] with 0s. Once all of the loops are finished, only the 0s are left.
This Online Demo demonstrates this in action.
If using a long variable, the value ranges are: -2147483648 to 2147483647 (in most C implementations, as noted by #Eric P in comments)
So the expression while (number<1 || number>9999999999999999); (and similar) do not make sense. As a number, number will never approach 9999999999999999. Same for expression: ...J>100000000000000000; J*=10). (and its really moot at this point, but > should be <)
Consider using a string approach:
Using a null terminated char array (C string) to hold initial value, the essential steps are pretty straight forward and could include the following:
char number[17];//room for 16 characters + null terminator
scanf("%16s", number);//string comprised of maximum of 16 digits
len = strlen(number);
int num_array[len];//using VLA
memset(num_array, 0, sizeof num_array);//zero array
for(int i = 0;i < len; i++)
{
if(number[i] < '0' || number[i] > '9') break;//qualify input. Break if non-numeric
num_array = number[i] - '0';
}
My book says for programming using while-loop, we must first initialize with a number, provide the condition mentioning 'while', and then it's to be followed by the statement to partake in the loop until the condition is met as well as to increment value in the loop.
Example :
i = 1;
while(i<=10)
{
s = s + i;
p = p * i;
i++;
}
But, in case of summing of odd numbers program no such incrementing value has been shown.
And, strangely enough(for me), I get correct result w/o the use of i++. I absolutely cannot wrap my head around why that is the case. Is mentioning i++ or i+1 not really a rule within loops?
int s, i, n;
s = 0;
i = 1;
while (i <= n)
{
s = s + i;
i = i + 2;
}
This line is the incrementing value:
i = i + 2;
The first loop increments by 1 with i++. But since you only want the odd numbers, you need to increment by 2.
You can simplify this to:
i += 2;
There is no such rule that we must use i++ in every loop(and for that matter using i as a loop variable).
As #Barmar indicated, you are incrementing i using the line :
i = i + 2;
There are cases where we need to increment by 3, 10, √n, logn, etc.
There are even cases where we need to run a loop backwards hence, we decrement i.
The point is, the value of i must change at some point otherwise we'll end up in an infinite loop.
void shifttable(char p[]) {
int i, j, m;
m = strlen(p);
for (i = 0; i < MAX; i++)
t[i] = m;
for (j = 0; j < m - 1; j++)
t[p[j]] = m - 1 - j;
}
I think, t[p[j]]=m-1-j; part, is indexed using a character.
Can someone explain me how its actually working?
The array indexing operator is treated as *(arr + index).
When one operand of the binary + operator is a pointer, the other operand must be an integral type.
char is an integral type.
Hence,
t[p[j]] = m-1-j;
is a legal statement.
The character will be converted to equivalent ascii value and it acts as an index to an array. Below piece of code gives you an example,
void main()
{
int a[10];
a['\t'] = 10;
printf("%d\n",a[9]);
}
Output: 10
Here ascii value of tab is 9 so a[9] will be 10. Please refer https://www.asciitable.com/ for decimal and hex equivalent of character.
Hope it helps you.
p[j] returns the ascii code of j-th character in p[], which is used later as index in t (the ascii code is extended to int by the compiler, see integer promotions).
char is an integral type. It can be used as an index value for the [] operator. Note however that t['0'] is not the same element as t[0]. The value of '0' depends on the encoding used on the platform. Most environments use ASCII for the source and execution character sets, where '0' has the value 48.
Indexing through character values is useful for many algorithms, especially searching and word matching. Typical implementations of the functions in <ctype.h> use arrays of 257 entries (or sometimes 384 entries for safety) where the function argument is used as an index.
Yet there is a major problem in using char values an index variables: the char type can be signed or unsigned by default, so the range of its values can encompass negative values. In the code fragment, if t is an array or a pointer to the beginning of an array, any character in p with a negative value will cause an access outside the boundaries of the array, which has undefined behavior.
It is advisable to raise the warning level so the compiler diagnoses such uses that are well hidden potential bugs. Use gcc -Wall or clang -Weverything.
To avoid this potential problem, the code should be modified this way:
#define MAX 256
int t[MAX];
void shifttable(char p[]) {
int i, j, m;
m = strlen(p);
for (i = 0; i < MAX; i++)
t[i] = m;
for (j = 0; j < m - 1; j++)
t[(unsigned char)p[j]] = m - 1 - j;
}
Note also that i, j, m and the t array should have type size_t to handle strings longer than INT_MAX.
In C, what is the difference between using ++i and i++, and which should be used in the incrementation block of a for loop?
++i will increment the value of i, and then return the incremented value.
i = 1;
j = ++i;
(i is 2, j is 2)
i++ will increment the value of i, but return the original value that i held before being incremented.
i = 1;
j = i++;
(i is 2, j is 1)
For a for loop, either works. ++i seems more common, perhaps because that is what is used in K&R.
In any case, follow the guideline "prefer ++i over i++" and you won't go wrong.
There's a couple of comments regarding the efficiency of ++i and i++. In any non-student-project compiler, there will be no performance difference. You can verify this by looking at the generated code, which will be identical.
The efficiency question is interesting... here's my attempt at an answer:
Is there a performance difference between i++ and ++i in C?
As #OnFreund notes, it's different for a C++ object, since operator++() is a function and the compiler can't know to optimize away the creation of a temporary object to hold the intermediate value.
i++ is known as post increment whereas ++i is called pre increment.
i++
i++ is post increment because it increments i's value by 1 after the operation is over.
Let’s see the following example:
int i = 1, j;
j = i++;
Here value of j = 1, but i = 2. Here the value of i will be assigned to j first, and then i will be incremented.
++i
++i is pre increment because it increments i's value by 1 before the operation.
It means j = i; will execute after i++.
Let’s see the following example:
int i = 1, j;
j = ++i;
Here the value of j = 2 but i = 2. Here the value of i will be assigned to j after the i incremention of i.
Similarly, ++i will be executed before j=i;.
For your question which should be used in the incrementation block of a for loop? the answer is, you can use any one... It doesn't matter. It will execute your for loop same number of times.
for(i=0; i<5; i++)
printf("%d ", i);
And
for(i=0; i<5; ++i)
printf("%d ", i);
Both the loops will produce the same output. I.e., 0 1 2 3 4.
It only matters where you are using it.
for(i = 0; i<5;)
printf("%d ", ++i);
In this case output will be 1 2 3 4 5.
i++: In this scenario first the value is assigned and then increment happens.
++i: In this scenario first the increment is done and then value is assigned
Below is the image visualization and also here is a nice practical video which demonstrates the same.
++i increments the value, then returns it.
i++ returns the value, and then increments it.
It's a subtle difference.
For a for loop, use ++i, as it's slightly faster. i++ will create an extra copy that just gets thrown away.
Please don't worry about the "efficiency" (speed, really) of which one is faster. We have compilers these days that take care of these things. Use whichever one makes sense to use, based on which more clearly shows your intent.
The only difference is the order of operations between the increment of the variable and the value the operator returns.
This code and its output explains the the difference:
#include<stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
unsigned int i=0, a;
printf("i initial value: %d; ", i);
a = i++;
printf("value returned by i++: %d, i after: %d\n", a, i);
i=0;
printf("i initial value: %d; ", i);
a = ++i;
printf(" value returned by ++i: %d, i after: %d\n",a, i);
}
The output is:
i initial value: 0; value returned by i++: 0, i after: 1
i initial value: 0; value returned by ++i: 1, i after: 1
So basically ++i returns the value after it is incremented, while i++ return the value before it is incremented. At the end, in both cases the i will have its value incremented.
Another example:
#include<stdio.h>
int main ()
int i=0;
int a = i++*2;
printf("i=0, i++*2=%d\n", a);
i=0;
a = ++i * 2;
printf("i=0, ++i*2=%d\n", a);
i=0;
a = (++i) * 2;
printf("i=0, (++i)*2=%d\n", a);
i=0;
a = (i++) * 2;
printf("i=0, (i++)*2=%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
Output:
i=0, i++*2=0
i=0, ++i*2=2
i=0, (++i)*2=2
i=0, (i++)*2=0
Many times there is no difference
Differences are clear when the returned value is assigned to another variable or when the increment is performed in concatenation with other operations where operations precedence is applied (i++*2 is different from ++i*2, as well as (i++)*2 and (++i)*2) in many cases they are interchangeable. A classical example is the for loop syntax:
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
has the same effect of
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
Efficiency
Pre-increment is always at least as efficient as post-increment: in fact post-increment usually involves keeping a copy of the previous value around and might add a little extra code.
As others have suggested, due to compiler optimisations many times they are equally efficient, probably a for loop lies within these cases.
Rule to remember
To not make any confusion between the two operators I adopted this rule:
Associate the position of the operator ++ with respect to the variable i to the order of the ++ operation with respect to the assignment
Said in other words:
++ before i means incrementation must be carried out before assignment;
++ after i means incrementation must be carried out after assignment:
The reason ++i can be slightly faster than i++ is that i++ can require a local copy of the value of i before it gets incremented, while ++i never does. In some cases, some compilers will optimize it away if possible... but it's not always possible, and not all compilers do this.
I try not to rely too much on compilers optimizations, so I'd follow Ryan Fox's advice: when I can use both, I use ++i.
The effective result of using either in a loop is identical. In other words, the loop will do the same exact thing in both instances.
In terms of efficiency, there could be a penalty involved with choosing i++ over ++i. In terms of the language spec, using the post-increment operator should create an extra copy of the value on which the operator is acting. This could be a source of extra operations.
However, you should consider two main problems with the preceding logic.
Modern compilers are great. All good compilers are smart enough to realize that it is seeing an integer increment in a for-loop, and it will optimize both methods to the same efficient code. If using post-increment over pre-increment actually causes your program to have a slower running time, then you are using a terrible compiler.
In terms of operational time-complexity, the two methods (even if a copy is actually being performed) are equivalent. The number of instructions being performed inside of the loop should dominate the number of operations in the increment operation significantly. Therefore, in any loop of significant size, the penalty of the increment method will be massively overshadowed by the execution of the loop body. In other words, you are much better off worrying about optimizing the code in the loop rather than the increment.
In my opinion, the whole issue simply boils down to a style preference. If you think pre-increment is more readable, then use it. Personally, I prefer the post-incrment, but that is probably because it was what I was taught before I knew anything about optimization.
This is a quintessential example of premature optimization, and issues like this have the potential to distract us from serious issues in design. It is still a good question to ask, however, because there is no uniformity in usage or consensus in "best practice."
++i: is pre-increment the other is post-increment.
i++: gets the element and then increments it.
++i: increments i and then returns the element.
Example:
int i = 0;
printf("i: %d\n", i);
printf("i++: %d\n", i++);
printf("++i: %d\n", ++i);
Output:
i: 0
i++: 0
++i: 2
++i (Prefix operation): Increments and then assigns the value
(eg): int i = 5, int b = ++i
In this case, 6 is assigned to b first and then increments to 7 and so on.
i++ (Postfix operation): Assigns and then increments the value
(eg): int i = 5, int b = i++
In this case, 5 is assigned to b first and then increments to 6 and so on.
Incase of for loop: i++ is mostly used because, normally we use the starting value of i before incrementing in for loop. But depending on your program logic it may vary.
i++ and ++i
This little code may help to visualize the difference from a different angle than the already posted answers:
int i = 10, j = 10;
printf ("i is %i \n", i);
printf ("i++ is %i \n", i++);
printf ("i is %i \n\n", i);
printf ("j is %i \n", j);
printf ("++j is %i \n", ++j);
printf ("j is %i \n", j);
The outcome is:
//Remember that the values are i = 10, and j = 10
i is 10
i++ is 10 //Assigns (print out), then increments
i is 11
j is 10
++j is 11 //Increments, then assigns (print out)
j is 11
Pay attention to the before and after situations.
for loop
As for which one of them should be used in an incrementation block of a for loop, I think that the best we can do to make a decision is use a good example:
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i <= 3; i++)
printf (" > iteration #%i", i);
printf ("\n");
for (j = 0; j <= 3; ++j)
printf (" > iteration #%i", j);
The outcome is:
> iteration #0 > iteration #1 > iteration #2 > iteration #3
> iteration #0 > iteration #1 > iteration #2 > iteration #3
I don't know about you, but I don't see any difference in its usage, at least in a for loop.
The following C code fragment illustrates the difference between the pre and post increment and decrement operators:
int i;
int j;
Increment operators:
i = 1;
j = ++i; // i is now 2, j is also 2
j = i++; // i is now 3, j is 2
Shortly:
++i and i++ works same if you are not writing them in a function. If you use something like function(i++) or function(++i) you can see the difference.
function(++i) says first increment i by 1, after that put this i into the function with new value.
function(i++) says put first i into the function after that increment i by 1.
int i=4;
printf("%d\n",pow(++i,2));//it prints 25 and i is 5 now
i=4;
printf("%d",pow(i++,2));//it prints 16 i is 5 now
Pre-crement means increment on the same line. Post-increment means increment after the line executes.
int j = 0;
System.out.println(j); // 0
System.out.println(j++); // 0. post-increment. It means after this line executes j increments.
int k = 0;
System.out.println(k); // 0
System.out.println(++k); // 1. pre increment. It means it increments first and then the line executes
When it comes with OR, AND operators, it becomes more interesting.
int m = 0;
if((m == 0 || m++ == 0) && (m++ == 1)) { // False
// In the OR condition, if the first line is already true
// then the compiler doesn't check the rest. It is a
// technique of compiler optimization
System.out.println("post-increment " + m);
}
int n = 0;
if((n == 0 || n++ == 0) && (++n == 1)) { // True
System.out.println("pre-increment " + n); // 1
}
In Array
System.out.println("In Array");
int[] a = { 55, 11, 15, 20, 25 };
int ii, jj, kk = 1, mm;
ii = ++a[1]; // ii = 12. a[1] = a[1] + 1
System.out.println(a[1]); // 12
jj = a[1]++; // 12
System.out.println(a[1]); // a[1] = 13
mm = a[1]; // 13
System.out.printf("\n%d %d %d\n", ii, jj, mm); // 12, 12, 13
for (int val: a) {
System.out.print(" " + val); // 55, 13, 15, 20, 25
}
In C++ post/pre-increment of pointer variable
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int x = 10;
int* p = &x;
std::cout << "address = " << p <<"\n"; // Prints the address of x
std::cout << "address = " << p <<"\n"; // Prints (the address of x) + sizeof(int)
std::cout << "address = " << &x <<"\n"; // Prints the address of x
std::cout << "address = " << ++&x << "\n"; // Error. The reference can't reassign, because it is fixed (immutable).
}
I assume you understand the difference in semantics now (though honestly I wonder why
people ask 'what does operator X mean' questions on stack overflow rather than reading,
you know, a book or web tutorial or something.
But anyway, as far as which one to use, ignore questions of performance, which are
unlikely important even in C++. This is the principle you should use when deciding
which to use:
Say what you mean in code.
If you don't need the value-before-increment in your statement, don't use that form of the operator. It's a minor issue, but unless you are working with a style guide that bans one
version in favor of the other altogether (aka a bone-headed style guide), you should use
the form that most exactly expresses what you are trying to do.
QED, use the pre-increment version:
for (int i = 0; i != X; ++i) ...
The difference can be understood by this simple C++ code below:
int i, j, k, l;
i = 1; //initialize int i with 1
j = i+1; //add 1 with i and set that as the value of j. i is still 1
k = i++; //k gets the current value of i, after that i is incremented. So here i is 2, but k is 1
l = ++i; // i is incremented first and then returned. So the value of i is 3 and so does l.
cout << i << ' ' << j << ' ' << k << ' '<< l << endl;
return 0;
The Main Difference is
i++ Post(After Increment) and
++i Pre (Before Increment)
post if i =1 the loop increments like 1,2,3,4,n
pre if i =1 the loop increments like 2,3,4,5,n
In simple words the difference between both is in the steps take a look to the image below.
Example:
int i = 1;
int j = i++;
The j result is 1
int i = 1;
int j = ++i;
The j result is 2
Note: in both cases i values is 2
You can think of the internal conversion of that as multiple statements:
// case 1
i++;
/* you can think as,
* i;
* i= i+1;
*/
// case 2
++i;
/* you can think as,
* i = i+i;
* i;
*/
a=i++ means a contains the current i value.
a=++i means a contains the incremented i value.
In C,
int i = 20;
int j = 5;
int k = i+++--j;
Why is k=24?
In my understanding, k = (i)++ + (--j) so it is (20 + 4)++ = 25.
OK. Here is a little programme I wrote for test, and yes the post increment is done after k is assigned.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int i = 20;
int k = i++;
printf("%d\n", k);
printf("%d\n", i);
return 0;
}
Output:
20
21
Could anyone tell me why vote down? I was unsure about this because I was a new commer to C.
C has a famous rule of maximal munch strategy.
From this rule:
i+++--j
is parsed as
(i++) + (--j)
(C99, 6.4p4) "If the input stream has been parsed into preprocessing tokens up to a given character, the next preprocessing token is the longest sequence of characters that could constitute a preprocessing token."
And of course the value of i++ is i and the value of --j is j - 1, so the value of i+++--j is 20 + 4 equal to 24.
Think of it as a greedy algorithm, it will take as many characters as possible, if they make sense.
Example:
i+ // good, keep going
i++ // good, keep going
i+++ // not good, start new token
+ // good, keep going
+- // not valid, start new token
- // good
-- // good
--j // valid
So:
int i = 20;
int j = 5;
int k = i++ + --j; // (20++) + (--5)
That is how it is grouped. The second part is pre and post increment.
i++ // post-increment, use the value first and then increment
--j // pre-increment, decrement first and then use the value
So you get:
int k = 20 + 4
// afterwards: i = 21 and j = 4
In my understanding, k = (i)++ + (--j)
Yes, that's it.
so it is (20 + 4)++ = 25.
No, it's 20 + 4 and so it is 24. (You can't increment a constant, nor does it make any sense, nor is there a second increment operator in the expression, so I really don't know where you got that idea). But otherwise your deduction is correct.
I agree with what others have said as far as parsing. By the way, when faced with questions such as this operator precedence can be very important. For C, this site has a list of operators and their precedence.
The value of k is determined by the operators precedence.
The difference bitween n = i++ and n = ++i, is that in the first the value is of i is assigned to n before the incrementation, but in the last the value of i is assigned to n after the incrementation.
In the case of k = i++ + --j. the operations are processed in this order:
1) decrement j by 1 (j = j-1)
2) assign i + j to k (k = i + j)
3) increment i by 1 (i = i + 1)