Unsure why this cast works - c

i have the following code:
unsigned short a, b, c, d;
unsigned long result;
a = 30000;
b = 40000;
c = 50000;
d = 60000;
result = (unsigned long)(a + b + c + d) / 4;
printf("result is %i", result);
The result of this is (30000 + 40000 + 50000 + 60000) / 4 = 180000 / 4 = 45000 which is correct. But i wonder why. I would expect the addition of unsigned shorts to overflow because it is done in 16 bit and after the addition the overflowed result is converted to unsigned long and then divided by 4.
What am i missing here?

Your shorts were promoted to ints before addition.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/implicit_conversion (the link is about C++, but C rules are basically same)
Integral promotion
...arithmetic operators do not accept types smaller than int as arguments, and integral promotions are automatically applied...

Related

Error on casting unsigned int to float

For the following program.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
unsigned int a = 10;
unsigned int b = 20;
unsigned int c = 30;
float d = -((a*b)*(c/3));
printf("d = %f\n", d);
return 0;
}
It is very strange that output is
d = 4294965248.000000
When I change the magic number 3 in the expression to calculate d to 3.0, I got correct result:
d = 2000.000000
If I change the type of a, b, c to int, I also got correct result.
I guess this error occurred by the conversion from unsigned int to float, but I do not know details about how the strange result was created.
I think you realize that you casting minus to unsigned int before assignment to float. If you run the below code, you will get highly likely 4294965296
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
unsigned int a = 10;
unsigned int b = 20;
unsigned int c = 30;
printf("%u", -((a*b)*(c/3)));
return 0;
}
The -2000 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
0xFFFFF830. 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 0xFFFFF830 which is 4294965296 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 -2000. If you had used
%u it would have printed as 4294965296.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int main()
{
float d = 4294965296;
printf("d = %f\n\n", d);
return 0;
}
When you convert 4294965296 to float, the number you are using is long to fit into the fraction part. Now that some precision was lost. Because of the loss, you got 4294965248.000000 as I got.
The IEEE-754 floating-point standard is a standard for representing
and manipulating floating-point quantities that is followed by all
modern computer systems.
bit 31 30 23 22 0
S EEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
The bit numbers are counting from the least-significant bit. The first
bit is the sign (0 for positive, 1 for negative). The following
8 bits are the exponent in excess-127 binary notation; this
means that the binary pattern 01111111 = 127 represents an exponent
of 0, 1000000 = 128, represents 1, 01111110 = 126 represents
-1, and so forth. The mantissa fits in the remaining 24 bits, with
its leading 1 stripped off as described above. Source
As you can see, when doing conversion 4294965296 to float, precision which is 00011000 loss occurs.
11111111111111111111100 00011000 0 <-- 4294965296
11111111111111111111100 00000000 0 <-- 4294965248
This is because you use - on an unsigned int. The - inverts the bits of the number. Lets print some unsigned integers:
printf("Positive: %u\n", 2000);
printf("Negative: %u\n", -2000);
// Output:
// Positive: 2000
// Negative: 4294965296
Lets print the hex values:
printf("Positive: %x\n", 2000);
printf("Negative: %x\n", -2000);
// Output
// Positive: 7d0
// Negative: fffff830
As you can see, the bits are inverted. So the problem comes from using - on unsigned int, not from casting unsigned intto float.
As others have said, the issue is that you are trying to negate an unsigned number. Most of the solutions already given have you do some form of casting to float such that the arithmetic is done on floating point types. An alternate solution would be to cast the results of your arithmetic to int and then negate, that way the arithmetic operations will be done on integral types, which may or may not be preferable, depending on your actual use-case:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
unsigned int a = 10;
unsigned int b = 20;
unsigned int c = 30;
float d = -(int)((a*b)*(c/3));
printf("d = %f\n", d);
return 0;
}
Your whole calculation will be done unsigned so it is the same as
float d = -(2000u);
-2000 in unsigned int (assuming 32bits int) is 4294965295
this gets written in your float d. But as float can not save this exact number it gets saved as 4294965248.
As a rule of thumb you can say that float has a precision of 7 significant base 10 digits.
What is calculated is 2^32 - 2000 and then floating point precision does the rest.
If you instead use 3.0 this changes the types in your calculation as follows
float d = -((a*b)*(c/3.0));
float d = -((unsigned*unsigned)*(unsigned/double));
float d = -((unsigned)*(double));
float d = -(double);
leaving you with the correct negative value.
you need to cast the ints to floats
float d = -((a*b)*(c/3));
to
float d = -(((float)a*(float)b)*((float)c/3.0));
-((a*b)*(c/3)); is all performed in unsigned integer arithmetic, including the unary negation. Unary negation is well-defined for an unsigned type: mathematically the result is modulo 2N where N is the number of bits in unsigned int. When you assign that large number to the float, you encounter some loss of precision; the result, due to its binary magnitude, is the nearest number to the unsigned int that divides 2048.
If you change 3 to 3.0, then c / 3.0 is a double type, and the result of a * b is therefore converted to a double before being multiplied. This double is then assigned to a float, with the precision loss already observed.

When R.H.S have negative int and unsigned int outside the range of int in arithmetic operation

I apologize for the title since I had to somehow find a unique one.
Consider the code below:
#include<stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int b = 2147483648; // To show the maximum value of int type here is 2147483647
printf("%d\n",b);
unsigned int a = 2147483650;
unsigned int c = a+(-1);
printf("%u\n",c);
}
The output of the above program when run on a 64 bit OS with gcc compiler is:
-2147483648
2147483649
Please see my understanding of the case:
Unsigned int a is outside the range of signed int type. In the R.H.S (-1) will converted to unsigned int since the operands are of different types. The result of converting -1 to unsigned int is:
-1 + (unsigned int MAX_UINT +1) = unsigned int MAX_UINT = 4294967295.
Now R.H.S will be:
unsigned int MAX_UINT + 2147483650
Now this looks like it is outside the range of unsigned int. I do not know how to proceed from here and it looks like even if I proceed with this explanation I will not reach the empirical output.
Please give a proper explanation.
PS: To know how int b = 2147483648 became -2147483648 is not my intention. I just added that line in the code so it is pretty clear that 2147483650
is outside the range of int.
2147483648 is not a 32-bit int, it is just above INT_MAX whose value is 2147483647 on such platforms.
int b = 2147483648; is implementation defined. On your platform, it seems to perform 32-bit wrap around, which is typical of two's complement architectures but not guaranteed by the C Standard.
As a consequence printf("%d\n", b); outputs -2147483648.
The rest of the code is perfectly defined on 32-bit systems, and the output 2147483649 is correct and expected. The fact that the OS by 64 bit plays a very subtle role in the evaluation steps but is mostly irrelevant to the actual result, which is fully defined by the C Standard.
Here are steps:
unsigned int a = 2147483650; no surprise here, a is an unsigned int and its initializer is either an int, a long int or a long long int depending on which of these types has at least 32 value bits. On Windows and 32-bit linux, it would be long long int whereas on 64-bit linux it would be long int. The value is truncated to 32-bit upon storing to the unsigned int variable.
You can verify these steps by adding this code:
printf("sizeof(2147483650) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483650));
printf(" sizeof(a) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(a));
The second definition unsigned int c = a+(-1); undergoes the same steps:
c is defined as an unsigned int and its initializer is truncated to 32 bits when stored into c. The initializer is an addition:
the first term is an unsigned int with value 2147483650U.
the second term is a parenthesized expression with the unary negation of an int with value 1. Hence it is an int with value -1 as you correctly analyzed.
the second term is converted to unsigned int: conversion is performed modulo 232, hence the value is 4294967295U.
the addition is then performed using unsigned arithmetics, which is specified as taking place modulo the width of the unsigned int type, hence the result is an unsigned int with value 2147483649U, (6442450945 modulo 232)
This unsigned int value is stored into c and prints correctly with printf("%u\n", c); as 2147483649.
If the expression had been instead 2147483650 + (-1), the computation would have taken place in 64 bits signed arithmetics, with type long int or long long int depending on the architecture, with a result of 2147483649. This value would then be truncated to 32-bits when stored into c, hence the same value for c as 2147483649.
Note that the above steps do not depend on the actual representation of negative values. They are fully defined for all architectures, only the width of type int matters.
You can verify these steps with extra code. Here is a complete instrumented program to illustrate these steps:
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
printf("\n");
printf(" sizeof(int) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(int));
printf(" sizeof(unsigned int) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(unsigned int));
printf(" sizeof(long int) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(long int));
printf(" sizeof(long long int) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(long long int));
printf("\n");
int b = 2147483647; // To show the maximum value of int type here is 2147483647
printf(" int b = 2147483647;\n");
printf(" b -> %d\n",b);
printf(" sizeof(b) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(b));
printf(" sizeof(2147483647) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483647));
printf(" sizeof(2147483648) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483648));
printf(" sizeof(2147483648U) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483648U));
printf("\n");
unsigned int a = 2147483650;
printf(" unsigned int a = 2147483650;\n");
printf(" a -> %u\n", a);
printf(" sizeof(2147483650U) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483650U));
printf(" sizeof(2147483650) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483650));
printf("\n");
unsigned int c = a+(-1);
printf(" unsigned int c = a+(-1);\n");
printf(" c -> %u\n", c);
printf(" sizeof(c) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(c));
printf(" a+(-1) -> %u\n", a+(-1));
printf(" sizeof(a+(-1)) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(a+(-1)));
#if LONG_MAX == 2147483647
printf(" 2147483650+(-1) -> %lld\n", 2147483650+(-1));
#else
printf(" 2147483650+(-1) -> %ld\n", 2147483650+(-1));
#endif
printf(" sizeof(2147483650+(-1)) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483650+(-1)));
printf(" 2147483650U+(-1) -> %u\n", 2147483650U+(-1));
printf("sizeof(2147483650U+(-1)) -> %d\n", (int)sizeof(2147483650U+(-1)));
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Output:
sizeof(int) -> 4
sizeof(unsigned int) -> 4
sizeof(long int) -> 8
sizeof(long long int) -> 8
int b = 2147483647;
b -> 2147483647
sizeof(b) -> 4
sizeof(2147483647) -> 4
sizeof(2147483648) -> 8
sizeof(2147483648U) -> 4
unsigned int a = 2147483650;
a -> 2147483650
sizeof(2147483650U) -> 4
sizeof(2147483650) -> 8
unsigned int c = a+(-1);
c -> 2147483649
sizeof(c) -> 4
a+(-1) -> 2147483649
sizeof(a+(-1)) -> 4
2147483650+(-1) -> 2147483649
sizeof(2147483650+(-1)) -> 8
2147483650U+(-1) -> 2147483649
sizeof(2147483650U+(-1)) -> 4
int b = 2147483648;
printf("%d\n",b);
// -2147483648
Conversion of an integer (any signed or unsigned) that is outside the range of the target signed type:
... either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised. C11 §6.3.1.3 3
In your case with the signed integer 2147483648, the implementation-defined behavior appears to map the lowest 32-bits of the source 2147483648 to your int's 32-bits. This may not be the result with another compiler.
a+(-1) is the same as a + (-(1u)) same as a + (-1u + UINT_MAX + 1u) same as a + UINT_MAX. The addition overflows the unsigned range, yet unsigned overflow wraps around. So the sum is 2147483649 before the assignment. With the below code, there is no out of range conversion. The only conversion is signed 1 to unsigned 1 and long 2147483650 (or long long 2147483650) to unsigned 2147483650. Both in range conversions.
unsigned int a = 2147483650;
unsigned int c = a+(-1);
printf("%u\n",c);
// 2147483649
Look at it like this
2147483650 0x80000002
+ -1 +0xFFFFFFFF
---------- ----------
2147483649 0x80000001
Where does the 0xFFFFFFFF come from? Well, 0 is 0x00000000, and if you subtract 1 from that you get 0xFFFFFFFF because unsigned arithmetic is well-defined to "wrap".
Or taking your decimal version further, 0 - 1 is UINT_MAX because unsigned int wraps, and so does the sum.
your value 2147483650
UINT_MAX + 4294967295
----------
6442450945
modulo 2^32 % 4294967296
----------
2147483649

Why does it seem that INT_MIN and INT_MAX are out of range for type int?

When I use the INT_MAX and INT_MIN constants I get -2147483648 ... 2147483647.
But when I try to compute the maximum and minimum values for ints using this function:
static int computeInt(void)
{
int myInt = 0;
int min = 0;
int max = 32;
for (int i = min; i < max; i++)
{
myInt = myInt + pow(2, i);
}
myInt = myInt / 2;
return myInt;
}
I don't get the same number. I think the technical for what happens is that myInt overflows.
Thanks!
Yes, you have an overflow because the range for int is from -2^31 to 2^31 - 1 and you try to compute the sum of powers of 2 from 0 to 31. Your final value is the result of: (2^0 + 2^1 + 2^3 + ... + 2^31) / 2 which is obviously greater than 2^31 - 1
Your assumption is right. Your int overflows, because you keep adding to it. I'm not sure why you're using a loop, when the max int is simply 2^31-1 or pow(2,31)-1.
Using a loop you could do:
for (int i = min; i < max; i++) {
myInt = myInt * 2;
}
myInt = myInt - 1;
(Note that this loop also results in a temporary overflow. After the last iteration myInt will be -2147483648, but subtracting one will result in 2147483647)
It isn't possible to detect the maximum signed integer reliably through arithmetic in this way because as soon as the integer exceeds INT_MAX the result is undefined (it could simply crash).
You can however work out the maximum unsigned integer, as this is guaranteed to wrap around back to 0, i.e. UINT_MAX + 1 is guaranteed to be 0. Similarly, unsigned int a = -1 will equal UINT_MAX.
Since a signed int and unsigned int are guaranteed to use the same amount of storage and alignment, you could divide the calculated UINT_MAX by 2 to get INT_MAX. Therefore:
unsigned int maxint = -1;
maxint /= 2;
As stated in the previous answers and comments, you have an overflow (even when assuming sizeof(int) = 4.
If you want to compute "manually" these constants, you could simply do this :
int myInt = (((unsigned int)(-1)) >> 1);
int myIntMin = -myInt - 1;
This is not trully architecture independent as it assumes that signed integers are represented using 2's complement logic and that there is no padding bit in the integer representation. But in many cases, this should work fine (tested on x86 pc).

Is unsigned integer subtraction defined behavior?

I have come across code from someone who appears to believe there is a problem subtracting an unsigned integer from another integer of the same type when the result would be negative. So that code like this would be incorrect even if it happens to work on most architectures.
unsigned int To, Tf;
To = getcounter();
while (1) {
Tf = getcounter();
if ((Tf-To) >= TIME_LIMIT) {
break;
}
}
This is the only vaguely relevant quote from the C standard I could find.
A computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow, because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting type.
I suppose one could take that quote to mean that when the right operand is larger the operation is adjusted to be meaningful in the context of modulo truncated numbers.
i.e.
0x0000 - 0x0001 == 0x 1 0000 - 0x0001 == 0xFFFF
as opposed to using the implementation dependent signed semantics:
0x0000 - 0x0001 == (unsigned)(0 + -1) == (0xFFFF but also 0xFFFE or 0x8001)
Which or what interpretation is right? Is it defined at all?
When you work with unsigned types, modular arithmetic (also known as "wrap around" behavior) is taking place. To understand this modular arithmetic, just have a look at these clocks:
9 + 4 = 1 (13 mod 12), so to the other direction it is: 1 - 4 = 9 (-3 mod 12). The same principle is applied while working with unsigned types. If the result type is unsigned, then modular arithmetic takes place.
Now look at the following operations storing the result as an unsigned int:
unsigned int five = 5, seven = 7;
unsigned int a = five - seven; // a = (-2 % 2^32) = 4294967294
int one = 1, six = 6;
unsigned int b = one - six; // b = (-5 % 2^32) = 4294967291
When you want to make sure that the result is signed, then stored it into signed variable or cast it to signed. When you want to get the difference between numbers and make sure that the modular arithmetic will not be applied, then you should consider using abs() function defined in stdlib.h:
int c = five - seven; // c = -2
int d = abs(five - seven); // d = 2
Be very careful, especially while writing conditions, because:
if (abs(five - seven) < seven) // = if (2 < 7)
// ...
if (five - seven < -1) // = if (-2 < -1)
// ...
if (one - six < 1) // = if (-5 < 1)
// ...
if ((int)(five - seven) < 1) // = if (-2 < 1)
// ...
but
if (five - seven < 1) // = if ((unsigned int)-2 < 1) = if (4294967294 < 1)
// ...
if (one - six < five) // = if ((unsigned int)-5 < 5) = if (4294967291 < 5)
// ...
The result of a subtraction generating a negative number in an unsigned type is well-defined:
[...] A computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow,
because a result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type is
reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest value that can be
represented by the resulting type.
(ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) §6.2.5/9)
As you can see, (unsigned)0 - (unsigned)1 equals -1 modulo UINT_MAX+1, or in other words, UINT_MAX.
Note that although it does say "A computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow", which might lead you to believe that it applies only for exceeding the upper limit, this is presented as a motivation for the actual binding part of the sentence: "a result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type is
reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest value that can be
represented by the resulting type." This phrase is not restricted to overflow of the upper bound of the type, and applies equally to values too low to be represented.
Well, the first interpretation is correct. However, your reasoning about the "signed semantics" in this context is wrong.
Again, your first interpretation is correct. Unsigned arithmetic follow the rules of modulo arithmetic, meaning that 0x0000 - 0x0001 evaluates to 0xFFFF for 32-bit unsigned types.
However, the second interpretation (the one based on "signed semantics") is also required to produce the same result. I.e. even if you evaluate 0 - 1 in the domain of signed type and obtain -1 as the intermediate result, this -1 is still required to produce 0xFFFF when later it gets converted to unsigned type. Even if some platform uses an exotic representation for signed integers (1's complement, signed magnitude), this platform is still required to apply rules of modulo arithmetic when converting signed integer values to unsigned ones.
For example, this evaluation
signed int a = 0, b = 1;
unsigned int c = a - b;
is still guaranteed to produce UINT_MAX in c, even if the platform is using an exotic representation for signed integers.
With unsigned numbers of type unsigned int or larger, in the absence of type conversions, a-b is defined as yielding the unsigned number which, when added to b, will yield a. Conversion of a negative number to unsigned is defined as yielding the number which, when added to the sign-reversed original number, will yield zero (so converting -5 to unsigned will yield a value which, when added to 5, will yield zero).
Note that unsigned numbers smaller than unsigned int may get promoted to type int before the subtraction, the behavior of a-b will depend upon the size of int.
Well, an unsigned integer subtraction has defined behavior, also it is a tricky thing. When you subtract two unsigned integers, result is promoted to higher type int if result (lvalue) type is not specified explicitly. In the latter case, for example, int8_t result = a - b; (where a and b have int8_t type) you can obtain very weird behavior. I mean you may loss transitivity property (i.e. if a > b and b > c it is true that a > c).
The loss of transitivity can destroy a tree-type data structure work. Care must be taken not to provide comparison function for sorting, searching, tree building that uses unsigned integer subtraction to deduce which key is higher or lower.
See example below.
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void main()
{
uint8_t a = 255;
uint8_t b = 100;
uint8_t c = 150;
printf("uint8_t a = %+d, b = %+d, c = %+d\n\n", a, b, c);
printf(" b - a = %+d\tpromotion to int type\n"
" (int8_t)(b - a) = %+d\n\n"
" b + a = %+d\tpromotion to int type\n"
"(uint8_t)(b + a) = %+d\tmodular arithmetic\n"
" b + a %% %d = %+d\n\n",
b - a, (int8_t)(b - a),
b + a, (uint8_t)(b + a),
UINT8_MAX + 1,
(b + a) % (UINT8_MAX + 1));
printf("c %s b (b - c = %d), b %s a (b - a = %d), AND c %s a (c - a = %d)\n",
(int8_t)(c - b) < 0 ? "<" : ">", (int8_t)(c - b),
(int8_t)(b - a) < 0 ? "<" : ">", (int8_t)(b - a),
(int8_t)(c - a) < 0 ? "<" : ">", (int8_t)(c - a));
}
$ ./a.out
uint8_t a = +255, b = +100, c = +150
b - a = -155 promotion to int type
(int8_t)(b - a) = +101
b + a = +355 promotion to int type
(uint8_t)(b + a) = +99 modular arithmetic
b + a % 256 = +99
c > b (b - c = 50), b > a (b - a = 101), AND c < a (c - a = -105)
int d = abs(five - seven); // d = 2
std::abs is not "suitable" for unsigned integers. A cast is needed though.

int divided by unsigned int causing rollover

I try to divide int by unsigned int and I get unexpected result:
int b;
unsigned int c;
int res;
float res_f;
b = -25;
c = 5;
res = b / c; // res = 858993454
res_f = b / c; // res_f = -5.000000
The same works just fine for '+', '-' and '*', but fails for '/'. What is it that I miss here?
P.S.
It was tested on different compilers and the result was the same.
Assuming this is C or similar (e.g. Objective C), change:
res = b / c;
to:
res = b / (int)c;
Explanation: b is being converted from int to unsigned int, according to C's type conversion rules for mixed expressions. In the process it overflows from -25 to 0xFFFFFFE7 == 4294967271. Then you get an unsigned int result of 4294967271 / 5U = 858993454U, which is then being implicitly converted back to an int (no overflow in this step, as the result is in the range of both signed and unsigned 32-bit ints).
By the way, the float result should be the same, within the precision limits of a float (I get 858993472.0). I'm surprised that you get -5.0 in this case.

Resources