I am learning in C and I got a question regarding this conversion.
short int x = -0x52ea;
printf ( "%x", x );
output:
ffffad16
I would like to know how this conversion works because it's supposed to be on a test and we won't be able to use any compilers. Thank you
I would like to know how this conversion works
It is undefined behavior (UB)
short int x = -0x52ea;
0x52ea is a hexadecimal constant. It has the value of 52EA16, or 21,22610. It has type int as it fits in an int, even if int was 16 bit. OP's int is evidently 32-bit.
- negates the value to -21,226.
The value is assigned to a short int which can encode -21,226, so no special issues with assigning this int to a short int.
printf("%x", x );
short int x is passed to a ... function, so goes through the default argument
promotions and becomes an int. So an int with the value -21,226 is passed.
"%x" used with printf(), expects an unsigned argument. Since the type passed is not an unsigned (and not an int with a non-negative value - See exception C11dr §6.5.2.2 6), the result is undefined behavior (UB). Apparently the UB on your machine was to print the hex pattern of a 32-bit 2's complement of -21,226 or FFFFAD16.
If the exam result is anything but UB, just smile and nod and realize the curriculum needs updating.
The point here is that when a number is negative, it's structured in a completely different way.
1 in 16-bit hexadecimal is 0001, -1 is ffff. The most relevant bit (8000) indicates that it's a negative number (admitting it's a signed integer), and that's why it can only go as positive as 32767 (7fff), and as negative as -32768 (8000).
Basically to transform from positive to negative, you invert all bits and sum 1. 0001 inverted is fffe, +1 = ffff.
This is a convention called Two's complement and it's used because it's quite trivial to do arithmetic using bitwise operations when you use it.
Related
GCC version 5.4.0
Ubuntu 16.04
I have noticed some weird behavior with the right shift in C when I store a value in variable or not.
This code snippet is printing 0xf0000000, the expected behavior
int main() {
int x = 0x80000000
printf("%x", x >> 3);
}
These following two code snippets are printing 0x10000000, which is very weird in my opinion, it is performing logical shifts on a negative number
1.
int main() {
int x = 0x80000000 >> 3
printf("%x", x);
}
2.
int main() {
printf("%x", (0x80000000 >> 3));
}
Any insight would be really appreciated. I do not know if it a specific issue with my personal computer, in which case it can't be replicated, or if it is just a behavior in C.
Quoting from https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/integer_constant, for an hexadecimal integer constant without any suffix
The type of the integer constant is the first type in which the value can fit, from the list of types which depends on which numeric base and which integer-suffix was used.
int
unsigned int
long int
unsigned long int
long long int(since C99)
unsigned long long int(since C99)
Also, later
There are no negative integer constants. Expressions such as -1 apply the unary minus operator to the value represented by the constant, which may involve implicit type conversions.
So, if an int has 32 bit in your machine, 0x80000000 has the type unsigned int as it can't fit an int and can't be negative.
The statement
int x = 0x80000000;
Converts the unsigned int to an int in an implementation defined way, but the statement
int x = 0x80000000 >> 3;
Performs a right shift to the unsigned int before converting it to an int, so the results you see are different.
EDIT
Also, as M.M noted, the format specifier %x requires an unsigned integer argument and passing an int instead causes undefined behavior.
Right shift of the negative integer has implementation defined behavior. So when shifting right the negative number you cant "expect" anything
So it is just as it is in your implementation. It is not weird.
6.5.7/5 [...] If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation- defined.
It may also invoke the UB
6.5.7/4 [...] If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value, and E1×2E2 is representable in the result type, then that is the resulting
value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
As noted by #P__J__, the right shift is implementation-dependent, so you should not rely on it to be consistent on different platforms.
As for your specific test, which is on a single platform (possibly 32-bit Intel or another platform that uses two's complement 32-bit representation of integers), but still shows a different behavior:
GCC performs operations on literal constants using the highest precision available (usually 64-bit, but may be even more). Now, the statement x = 0x80000000 >> 3 will not be compiled into code that does right-shift at run time, instead the compiler figures out both operands are constant and folds them into x = 0x10000000. For GCC, the literal 0x80000000 is NOT a negative number. It is the positive integer 2^31.
On the other hand, x = 0x80000000 will store the value 2^31 into x, but the 32-bit storage cannot represent that as the positive integer 2^31 that you gave as an integer literal - the value is beyond the range representable by a 32-bit two's complement signed integer. The high-order bit ends up in the sign bit - so this is technically an overflow, though you don't get a warning or error. Then, when you use x >> 3, the operation is now performed at run-time (not by the compiler), with the 32-bit arithmetic - and it sees that as a negative number.
I have wrote this program as an exercise to understand how the signed and unsigned integer
work in C.
This code should print simply -9 the addition of -4+-5 stored in variable c
#include <stdio.h>
int main (void) {
unsigned int a=-4;
unsigned int b=-5;
unsigned int c=a+b;
printf("result is %u\n",c);
return 0;
}
When this code run it give me an unexpected result 4294967287.
I also have cast c from unsigned to signed integer printf ("result is %u\n",(int)c);
but also doesn't work.
please someone give explanation why the program doesn't give the exact result?
if this is an exercise in c and signed vs unsigned you should start by thinking - what does this mean?
unsigned int a=-4;
should it even compile? It seems like a contradiction.
Use a debugger to inspect the memory stored at he location of a. Do you think it will be the same in this case?
int a=-4;
Does the compiler do different things when its asked to add unsigned x to unsigned y as opposed to signed x and signed y. Ask the compiler to show you the machine code it generated in each case, read up what the instructions do
Explore investigate verify, you have the opportunity to get really interesting insights into how computers really work
You expect this:
printf("result is %u\n",c);
to print -9. That's impossible. c is of type unsigned int, and %u prints a value of type unsigned int (so good work using the right format string for the argument). An unsigned int object cannot store a negative value.
Going back a few line in your program:
unsigned int a=-4;
4 is of type (signed) int, and has the obvious value. Applying unary - to that value yields an int value of -4.
So far, so good.
Now what happens when you store this negative int value in an unsigned int object?
It's converted.
The language specifies what happens when you convert a signed int value to unsigned int: the value is adjusted to it's within the range of unsigned int. If unsigned int is 32 bits, this is done by adding or subtracting 232 as many times as necessary. In this case, the result is -4 + 232, or 4294967292. (That number makes a bit more sense if you show it in hexadecimal: 0xfffffffc.)
(The generated code isn't really going to repeatedly add or subtract 232; it's going to do whatever it needs to do to get the same result. The cool thing about using two's-complement to represent signed integers is that it doesn't have to do anything. The int value -4 and the unsigned int value 4294967292 have exactly the same bit representation. The rules are defined in terms of values, but they're designed so that they can be easily implemented using bitwise operations.)
Similarly, c will have the value -5 + 232, or 4294967291.
Now you add them together. The mathematical result is 8589934583, but that won't fit in an unsigned int. Using rules similar to those for conversion, the result is reduced to a value that's within the range of unsigned int, yielding 4294967287 (or, in hex, 0xfffffff7).
You also tried a cast:
printf ("result is %u\n",(int)c);
Here you're passing an int argument to printf, but you've told it (by using %u) to expect an unsigned int. You've also tried to convert a value that's too big to fit in an int -- and the unsigned-to-signed conversion rules do not define the result of such a conversion when the value is out of range. So don't do that.
That answer is precisely correct for 32-bit ints.
unsigned int a = -4;
sets a to the bit pattern 0xFFFFFFFC, which, interpreted as unsigned, is 4294967292 (232 - 4). Likewise, b is set to 232 - 5. When you add the two, you get 0x1FFFFFFF7 (8589934583), which is wider than 32 bits, so the extra bits are dropped, leaving 4294967287, which, as it happens, is 232 - 9. So if you had done this calculation on signed ints, you would have gotten exactly the same bit patterns, but printf would have rendered the answer as -9.
Using google, one finds the answer in two seconds..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signedness
For example, 0xFFFFFFFF gives −1, but 0xFFFFFFFFU gives 4,294,967,295
for 32-bit code
Therefore, your 4294967287 is expected in this case.
However, what exactly do you mean by "cast from unsigned to signed does not work?"
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
main()
{
int i=-5;
unsigned int j=i;
printf("%d",j);
getch();
}
O/p
-----
-5
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
main()
{
int i=-5;
unsigned int j=i;
printf("%u",j);
getch();
}
O/p
===
4255644633
Here I am not getting any compilation error .
It is giving -5 when print with the identifier %d and when printing with %u it is printing some garbage value .
The things I want to know are
1) Why compiler ignores when assigned integer with negative number to unsigned int.
2) How it is converting signed to unsigned ?
Who are "we?"
There's no "garbage value", it's probably just the result of viewing the bits of the signed integer as an unsigned. Typically two's complement will result in very large values for many a negative values. Try printing the value in hex to see the pattern more clearly, in decimal they're often hard to decipher.
I'd simply add that the concept of signed or unsigned is something that humans appreciate more than machines.
Assuming a 32-bit machine, your value of -5 is going to be represented internally by the 32-bit value 0xFFFFFFFB (two's complement).
When you insert printf("%d",j); into your source code, the compiler couldn't care less whether j is signed or unsigned, it just shoves 0xFFFFFFFB onto the stack and then a pointer to the "%d" string. The printf function when called looks at the format string, sees the %d and knows from that that it has to interpret the 0xFFFFFFFB as a signed value, hence the reason for it displaying -5 despite j being an unsigned int.
On the other hand, when you write printf("%u",j);, the "%u" makes printf interpret your 0xFFFFFFFB as an unsigned value. That value is 2^32 - 5, or 4294967291.
It's the format string passed to printf that determines how the value will be interpreted, not the type of the variable j.
There's noting unusual in the possibility to assign a negative value to an unsigned variable. The implicit conversion that happens in such cases is perfectly well defined by C language. The value is brought into the range of the target unsigned type in accordance with the rules of modulo arithmetic. The modulo is equal to 2^N, where N is the number of value bits in the unsigned recipient. This is how it has always been in C.
Printing an unsigned int value with %d specifier makes no sense. This specifier requires a signed int argument. Because of this mismatch, the behavior of your first code is undefined.
In other words, you got it completely backwards with regards to which value is garbage and which is not.
Your first code is essentially "printing garbage value" due to undefined behavior. The fact that it happens to match your original value of -5 is just a specific manifestation of undefined behavior.
Meanwhile, the second code is supposed to print a well-defined proper value. It should be result of conversion of -5 to unsigned int type by modulo UINT_MAX + 1. In your case that modulo probably happens to be 2^32 = 4294967296, which is why you are supposed to see 4294967296 - 5 = 4294967291.
How you managed to get 4255644633 is not clear. Your 4255644633 is apparently a result of different code, not the one you posted.
You can and you should get a warning (or perhaps failure) depending on the compiler and the settings.
The value you get is due to twos-complement.
The output in the second case is not a garbage value...
int i=-5;
when converted to binary form the Most Significant Bit is assigned '1' as -5 is a negative number..
but when u use %u the binary form is treated as a normal number and the 1 in MSB is treated a part of normal number..
In the C programming language, unsigned int is used to store positive values only. However, when I run the following code:
unsigned int x = -12;
printf("%d", x);
The output is still -12. I thought it should have printed out: 12, or am I misunderstanding something?
The -12 to the right of your equals sign is set up as a signed integer (probably 32 bits in size) and will have the hexadecimal value 0xFFFFFFF4. The compiler generates code to move this signed integer into your unsigned integer x which is also a 32 bit entity. The compiler assumes you only have a positive value to the right of the equals sign so it simply moves all 32 bits into x. x now has the value 0xFFFFFFF4 which is 4294967284 if interpreted as a positive number. But the printf format of %d says the 32 bits are to be interpreted as a signed integer so you get -12. If you had used %u it would have printed as 4294967284.
In either case you don't get what you expected since C language "trusts" the writer of code to only ask for "sensible" things. This is common in C. If you wanted to assign a value to x and were not sure whether the value on the right side of the equals was positive you could have written unsigned int x = abs(-12); and forced the compiler to generate code to take the absolute value of a signed integer before moving it to the unsigned integer.
The int is unsinged, but you've told printf to look at it as a signed int.
Try
unsigned int x = -12; printf("%u", x);
It won't print "12", but will print the max value of an unsigned int minus 11.
Exercise to the reader is to find out why :)
Passing %d to printf tells printf to treat the argument as a signed integer, regardless of what you actually pass. Use %u to print as unsigned.
It all has to do with interpretation of the value.
If you assume 16 bit signed and unsigned integers, then here some examples that aren't exactly correct, but demonstrate the concept.
0000 0000 0000 1100 unsigned int, and signed int value 12
1000 0000 0000 1100 signed int value -12, and a large unsigned integer.
For signed integers, the bit on the left is the sign bit.
0 = positive
1 = negative
For unsigned integers, there is no sign bit.
the left hand bit, lets you store a larger number instead.
So the reason you are not seeing what you are expecting is that.
unsigned int x = -12, takes -12 as an integer, and stores it into x. x is unsigned, so
what was a sign bit, is now a piece of the value.
printf lets you tell the compiler how you want a value to be displayed.
%d means display it as if it were a signed int.
%u means display it as if it were an unsigned int.
c lets you do this kind of stuff. You the programmer are in control.
Kind of like a firearm.
It's a tool.
You can use it correctly to deal with certain situations,
or incorrectly to remove one of your toes.
one possibly useful case is the following
unsigned int allBitsOn = -1;
That particular value sets all of the bits to 1
1111 1111 1111 1111
that can be useful sometimes.
printf('%d', x);
Means print a signed integer. You'll have to write this instead:
printf('%u', x);
Also, it'll still not print "12", it's going to be "4294967284".
They do store positive values. But you're outputting the (very high) positive value as a signed integer, so it gets re-interpreted again (in an implementation-defined fashion, I might add).
Use the format flag "%u instead.
Your program has undefined behavior because you passed the wrong type to printf (you told it you were going to pass an int but you passed an unsigned int). Consider yourself lucky that the "easiest" thing for the implementation to do was just silently print the wrong value and not jump to some code that does something harmful...
What you are missing is that the printf("%d",x) expects x to be signed, so although you assign -12 to x it is interpreted as 2's complement which would be a very large number.
However when you pass this really large number to printf it interprets it as signed thus correctly translating it back to -12.
The correct syntax to print a unsigned in print f is "%u" - try this and see what it does!
The assignment of a negative value to an unsigned int does not compute the absolute value of the negative: it interprets as an unsigned int the binary representation of the negative value, i.e., 4294967284 (2^32 - 12).
printf("%d") performs the opposite interpretation. This is why your program displays -12.
int and unsigned int are used to allocate a number of bytes to store a value nothing more.
The compiler should give warnings about signed mismatching but it really does not affect the bits in the memory that represent the value -12.
%x, %d, %u etc tells the compiler how to interrupt a number of bits when you print them.
When you are trying to display the int value you are passing it to a (int) argument and not a (unsigned int) argument and that causes it to print -12 and not 4294967284. Integers are stored in hexadecimal format and -12 for int is the same as 4294967284 for unsigned int in hexadecimal format..
That is why "%u" prints the right value you want and not "%d".. It depends on your argument type..GOOD LUCK!
The -12 is in 16-bit 2's compliment format. So do this:
if (x & 0x8000) { x = ~x+1; }
This will convert the 2's compliment -ve number to the equivalent +ve number. Good luck.
When the compiler implicitly converts -12 to an unsigned integer, the underlying binary representation remains unaltered. This conversion is purely semantic. The sign bit of the two's complement integer becomes the most significant bit of the unsigned integer. Thus when printf treats the unsigned integer as a signed integer with %d, it will see -12.
In general context when only positive numbers can be stored, negative numbers are not stored explicitly but their 2's complement is stored. In the same way here, the 2's complement of -12 will be stored in 'x' and you use %u to get it.
Please explain the following paragraph.
"The next question is whether we can assign a certain value to a variable without losing precision. It is not sufficient if we just check for overflow during the addition or subtraction, because someone might add 1 to -5 and assign the result to an unsigned int. Then the actual addition does not overflow, but the result still does not fit."
when i am adding 1 to -5 i dont see any reason to worry.the answer is as it should be -4.
so what is the problem of result not being fit??
you can find the full article here through which i was going:
http://www.fefe.de/intof.html
The binary representation of -4, in a 32-bit word, is as follows (hex notation)
0xfffffffc
When interpreted as an unsigned integer, this bit pattern represents the number 2**32-4, or 18446744073709551612. I'm not sure I would call this phenomenon "overflow", but it is a common mistake to assign a small negative integer to a variable of unsigned type and wind up with a really big positive integer.
This trick is actually exploited for bounds checking: if you have a signed integer i and want to know if it is in the range 0 <= i < n, you can test
if ((unsigned)i < n) { ... }
which gives you the answer using one comparison instead of two. The cast to unsigned has no run-time cost; it just tells the compiler to generate an unsigned comparison instead of a signed comparison.
Try assigning it to a unsigned int, not an int.
The term unsigned int is the key - by default an int datatype will hold negative and positive numbers; however, unsigned ints are always positive. They provide this option because uints can technically hold greater positive values than regular signed ints because they do not need to use a bit to keep track of whether or not its negative or positive.
Please see:
Signed versus Unsigned Integers
The problem is that you're storing -4 in an unsigned int. Unsigned ints can only contain zero and positive values. If you assign -4 to one, you'll actually end up getting a very large positive number (the actual value depends on how wide an int you're using).
The problem is that the sizes of storage such as unsigned int can only hold so much. With 1 and -5 it does not matter, but with 1 and -500000000 you might end up with a confusing result. Also, unsigned storage will interpret anything stored in it as positive, so you cannot put a negative value in an unsigned variable.
Two big things to watch out for:
1. Overflow in the operation itself: 1 + -500000000
2. Issues in casting: (unsigned int)(1 + -500)
Unsigned variables, like unsigned int, cannot hold negative values. So assigning 1 - 5 to an unsigned int won't give you -4. I'm not sure what it'll give you, it's probably compiler specific.
Some code:
signed int first, second;
unsigned int result;
first = obtain(); // happens to be 1
second = obtain(); // happens to be -5
result = first + second; // unexpected result here - very large number - and it's too late to check that there's a problem
Say you obtained those values from keyboard. You need to check before addition that the result can be represented in unsigned int. That's what the article talks about.
By definition the number -4 cannot be represented in an unsigned int. -4 is a signed integer. The same goes for any negative number.
When you assign a negative integer to an unsigned int the actual bits of the number do not change, but they are merely represented differently. You'll get some ridiculously-large number due to the way integers are represented in binary (two's complement).
In two's complement, -4 is represented as 0xfffffffc. When 0xfffffffc is represented as an unsigned int you'll get the number 4,294,967,292.
You have to remember that fundamentally you're working with bits. So you can assign a value of -4 to an unsigned integer and this will place a series of bits into that memory location. Those bits can be interpreted as -4 in certain circumstances. One such circumstance is the obvious one: you've told the compiler/system that the bits in that memory location should be interpreted as a two's compliment signed number. So if you do printf("%s",i) prtinf does its magic and converts the two's compliment number to a magnitude and sign. The magnitude will be 4 and the sign will be negative, so it displays '-4'.
However, if you tell the compiler that the data at that memory location is not signed then the bits don't change but instead their interpretation does. So when you do your addition, store the result in an unsigned integer memory location and then call printf on the result it doesn't bother looking for the sign because by definition it is always positive. It calculates the magnitude and prints it. The magnitude will be off because the sign information is still encoded in the bits but it's treated as magnitude information.