I'm working with CodeVisionAVR Evaluation V2.05.0 which use C Compiler Reference.I met a problem when I tried this code:
unsigned int n;
long int data;
data|=(1<<n);
the problem is when n is Greater than 15 the value of data does not change. Although when I try:
data|=(1<<16);
the result is correct.
any help pleas.
In your code, the type of 1 is (as always) int. So, if sizeof (int) is smaller than sizeof (long), it stands to reason that you can't shift an int over all the bits in a long.
The solution is of course to use an (unsigned) long constant:
data |= 1UL << n;
I made it unsigned since unsigned integers are better suited for bitwise operators. The type of the literal 1UL is unsigned long. I find using suffixes nicer than casting, since it's way shorter and part of the literal itself, rather than having a literal of the wrong type and casting it.
Many people seem to expect that in an expression such as:
unsigned long long veryBig = 1 << 35; /* BAD CODE */
the right-hand side should somehow magically adapt to the "needs" of the left-hand side, and thus become of type unsigned long long (which I just assume has at least 35 bits, this is of course not portable but it's concise). That does not happen, C doesn't work like that. The expression is evaluated, then it's converted (if necessary) to the type on the left for the assignment to work.
If sizeof(int)==2 then 1<<n is of type int. And 1<<16 == 0. Thus data is not changed.
Probably because int is 16 bits. When you use integer literals the compiler can work out that the result is larger than fits in an int, and will optimize the whole shift-operation away, but when you use a variable, the compiler can't do that because it doesn't know the value of n.
i want to thank everyone, by your answer I really understood the problem
which is 1 in (1<<n) is integer with size 2 bytes.
i fixed the problem by let 1 be unsigned long (1UL<<n).
this is first question for me and you are awesome guys.
thank you and I'm sorry for my bad english.
Related
I need help solving this problem in my mind, so if anyone had a similar problem it would help me.
Here's my code:
char c=0xAB;
printf("01:%x\n", c<<2);
printf("02:%x\n", c<<=2);
printf("03:%x\n", c<<=2);
Why the program prints:
01:fffffeac
02:ffffffac
03:ffffffb0
What I expected to print, that is, what I got on paper is:
01:fffffeac
02:fffffeac
03:fffffab0
I obviously realized I didn't know what the operator <<= was doing, I thought c = c << 2.
If anyone can clarify this, I would be grateful.
You're correct in thinking that
c <<= 2
is equivalent to
c = c << 2
But you have to remember that c is a single byte (on almost all systems), it can only contain eight bits, while a value like 0xeac requires 12 bits.
When the value 0xeac is assigned back to c then the value will be truncated and the top bits will simply be ignored, leaving you with 0xac (which when promoted to an int becomes 0xffffffac).
<<= means shift and assign. It's the compound assignment version of c = c << 2;.
There's several problems here:
char c=0xAB; is not guaranteed to give a positive result, since char could be an 8 bit signed type. See Is char signed or unsigned by default?. In which case 0xAB will get translated to a negative number in an implementation-defined way. Avoid this bug by always using uint8_t when dealing with raw binary bytes.
c<<2 is subject to Implicit type promotion rules - specifically c will get promoted to a signed int. If the previous issue occured where your char got a negative value, c now holds a negative int.
Left-shifting negative values in C invokes undefined behavior - it is always a bug. Shifting signed operands in general is almost never correct.
%x isn't a suitable format specifier to print the int you ended up with, nor is it suitable for char.
As for how to fix the code, it depends on what you wish to achieve. It's recommended to cast to uint32 before shifting.
Context
We are porting C code that was originally compiled using an 8-bit C compiler for the PIC microcontroller. A common idiom that was used in order to prevent unsigned global variables (for example, error counters) from rolling over back to zero is the following:
if(~counter) counter++;
The bitwise operator here inverts all the bits and the statement is only true if counter is less than the maximum value. Importantly, this works regardless of the variable size.
Problem
We are now targeting a 32-bit ARM processor using GCC. We've noticed that the same code produces different results. So far as we can tell, it looks like the bitwise complement operation returns a value that is a different size than we would expect. To reproduce this, we compile, in GCC:
uint8_t i = 0;
int sz;
sz = sizeof(i);
printf("Size of variable: %d\n", sz); // Size of variable: 1
sz = sizeof(~i);
printf("Size of result: %d\n", sz); // Size of result: 4
In the first line of output, we get what we would expect: i is 1 byte. However, the bitwise complement of i is actually four bytes which causes a problem because comparisons with this now will not give the expected results. For example, if doing (where i is a properly-initialized uint8_t):
if(~i) i++;
we will see i "wrap around" from 0xFF back to 0x00. This behaviour is different in GCC compared with when it used to work as we intended in the previous compiler and 8-bit PIC microcontroller.
We are aware that we can resolve this by casting like so:
if((uint8_t)~i) i++;
or, by
if(i < 0xFF) i++;
however in both of these workarounds, the size of the variable must be known and is error-prone for the software developer. These kinds of upper bounds checks occur throughout the codebase. There are multiple sizes of variables (eg., uint16_t and unsigned char etc.) and changing these in an otherwise working codebase is not something we're looking forward to.
Question
Is our understanding of the problem correct, and are there options available to resolving this that do not require re-visiting each case where we've used this idiom? Is our assumption correct, that an operation like bitwise complement should return a result that is the same size as the operand? It seems like this would break, depending on processor architectures. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills and that C should be a bit more portable than this. Again, our understanding of this could be wrong.
On the surface this might not seem like a huge issue but this previously-working idiom is used in hundreds of locations and we're eager to understand this before proceeding with expensive changes.
Note: There is a seemingly similar but not exact duplicate question here: Bitwise operation on char gives 32 bit result
I didn't see the actual crux of the issue discussed there, namely, the result size of a bitwise complement being different than what's passed into the operator.
What you are seeing is the result of integer promotions. In most cases where an integer value is used in an expression, if the type of the value is smaller than int the value is promoted to int. This is documented in section 6.3.1.1p2 of the C standard:
The following may be used in an expression wherever an intor
unsigned int may be used
An object or expression with an integer type (other than intor unsigned int) whose integer conversion rank is less
than or equal to the rank of int and unsigned int.
A bit-field of type _Bool, int ,signed int, orunsigned int`.
If an int can represent all values of the original type (as
restricted by the width, for a bit-field), the value is
converted to an int; otherwise, it is converted to an
unsigned int. These are called the integer promotions. All
other types are unchanged by the integer promotions.
So if a variable has type uint8_t and the value 255, using any operator other than a cast or assignment on it will first convert it to type int with the value 255 before performing the operation. This is why sizeof(~i) gives you 4 instead of 1.
Section 6.5.3.3 describes that integer promotions apply to the ~ operator:
The result of the ~ operator is the bitwise complement of its
(promoted) operand (that is, each bit in the result is set if and only
if the corresponding bit in the converted operand is not set). The
integer promotions are performed on the operand, and the
result has the promoted type. If the promoted type is an unsigned
type, the expression ~E is equivalent to the maximum value
representable in that type minus E.
So assuming a 32 bit int, if counter has the 8 bit value 0xff it is converted to the 32 bit value 0x000000ff, and applying ~ to it gives you 0xffffff00.
Probably the simplest way to handle this is without having to know the type is to check if the value is 0 after incrementing, and if so decrement it.
if (!++counter) counter--;
The wraparound of unsigned integers works in both directions, so decrementing a value of 0 gives you the largest positive value.
in sizeof(i); you request the size of the variable i, so 1
in sizeof(~i); you request the size of the type of the expression, which is an int, in your case 4
To use
if(~i)
to know if i does not value 255 (in your case with an the uint8_t) is not very readable, just do
if (i != 255)
and you will have a portable and readable code
There are multiple sizes of variables (eg., uint16_t and unsigned char etc.)
To manage any size of unsigned :
if (i != (((uintmax_t) 2 << (sizeof(i)*CHAR_BIT-1)) - 1))
The expression is constant, so computed at compile time.
#include <limits.h> for CHAR_BIT and #include <stdint.h> for uintmax_t
Here are several options for implementing “Add 1 to x but clamp at the maximum representable value,” given that x is some unsigned integer type:
Add one if and only if x is less than the maximum value representable in its type:
x += x < Maximum(x);
See the following item for the definition of Maximum. This method
stands a good chance of being optimized by a compiler to efficient
instructions such as a compare, some form of conditional set or move,
and an add.
Compare to the largest value of the type:
if (x < ((uintmax_t) 2u << sizeof x * CHAR_BIT - 1) - 1) ++x
(This calculates 2N, where N is the number of bits in x, by shifting 2 by N−1 bits. We do this instead of shifting 1 N bits because a shift by the number of bits in a type is not defined by the C standard. The CHAR_BIT macro may be unfamiliar to some; it is the number of bits in a byte, so sizeof x * CHAR_BIT is the number of bits in the type of x.)
This can be wrapped in a macro as desired for aesthetics and clarity:
#define Maximum(x) (((uintmax_t) 2u << sizeof (x) * CHAR_BIT - 1) - 1)
if (x < Maximum(x)) ++x;
Increment x and correct if it wraps to zero, using an if:
if (!++x) --x; // !++x is true if ++x wraps to zero.
Increment x and correct if it wraps to zero, using an expression:
++x; x -= !x;
This is is nominally branchless (sometimes beneficial for performance), but a compiler may implement it the same as above, using a branch if needed but possibly with unconditional instructions if the target architecture has suitable instructions.
A branchless option, using the above macro, is:
x += 1 - x/Maximum(x);
If x is the maximum of its type, this evaluates to x += 1-1. Otherwise, it is x += 1-0. However, division is somewhat slow on many architectures. A compiler may optimize this to instructions without division, depending on the compiler and the target architecture.
Before stdint.h the variable sizes can vary from compiler to compiler and the actual variable types in C are still int, long, etc and are still defined by the compiler author as to their size. Not some standard nor target specific assumptions. The author(s) then need to create stdint.h to map the two worlds, that is the purpose of stdint.h to map the uint_this that to int, long, short.
If you are porting code from another compiler and it uses char, short, int, long then you have to go through each type and do the port yourself, there is no way around it. And either you end up with the right size for the variable, the declaration changes but the code as written works....
if(~counter) counter++;
or...supply the mask or typecast directly
if((~counter)&0xFF) counter++;
if((uint_8)(~counter)) counter++;
At the end of the day if you want this code to work you have to port it to the new platform. Your choice as to how. Yes, you have to spend the time hit each case and do it right, otherwise you are going to keep coming back to this code which is even more expensive.
If you isolate the variable types on the code before porting and what size the variable types are, then isolate the variables that do this (should be easy to grep) and change their declarations using stdint.h definitions which hopefully won't change in the future, and you would be surprised but the wrong headers are used sometimes so even put checks in so you can sleep better at night
if(sizeof(uint_8)!=1) return(FAIL);
And while that style of coding works (if(~counter) counter++;), for portability desires now and in the future it is best to use a mask to specifically limit the size (and not rely on the declaration), do this when the code is written in the first place or just finish the port and then you won't have to re-port it again some other day. Or to make the code more readable then do the if x<0xFF then or x!=0xFF or something like that then the compiler can optimize it into the same code it would for any of these solutions, just makes it more readable and less risky...
Depends on how important the product is or how many times you want send out patches/updates or roll a truck or walk to the lab to fix the thing as to whether you try to find a quick solution or just touch the affected lines of code. if it is only a hundred or few that is not that big of a port.
6.5.3.3 Unary arithmetic operators
...
4 The result of the ~ operator is the bitwise complement of its (promoted) operand (that is,
each bit in the result is set if and only if the corresponding bit in the converted operand is
not set). The integer promotions are performed on the operand, and the result has the
promoted type. If the promoted type is an unsigned type, the expression ~E is equivalent
to the maximum value representable in that type minus E.
C 2011 Online Draft
The issue is that the operand of ~ is being promoted to int before the operator is applied.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way out of this. Writing
if ( counter + 1 ) counter++;
won't help because promotions apply there as well. The only thing I can suggest is creating some symbolic constants for the maximum value you want that object to represent and testing against that:
#define MAX_COUNTER 255
...
if ( counter < MAX_COUNTER-1 ) counter++;
I have always, for as long as I can remember and ubiquitously, done this:
for (unsigned int i = 0U; i < 10U; ++i)
{
// ...
}
In other words, I use the U specifier on unsigned integers. Now having just looked at this for far too long, I'm wondering why I do this. Apart from signifying intent, I can't think of a reason why it's useful in trivial code like this?
Is there a valid programming reason why I should continue with this convention, or is it redundant?
First, I'll state what is probably obvious to you, but your question leaves room for it, so I'm making sure we're all on the same page.
There are obvious differences between unsigned ints and regular ints: The difference in their range (-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 for an int32 and 0 to 4,294,967,295 for a uint32). There's a difference in what bits are put at the most significant bit when you use the right bitshift >> operator.
The suffix is important when you need to tell the compiler to treat the constant value as a uint instead of a regular int. This may be important if the constant is outside the range of a regular int but within the range of a uint. The compiler might throw a warning or error in that case if you don't use the U suffix.
Other than that, Daniel Daranas mentioned in comments the only thing that happens: if you don't use the U suffix, you'll be implicitly converting the constant from a regular int to a uint. That's a tiny bit extra effort for the compiler, but there's no run-time difference.
Should you care? Here's my answer, (in bold, for those who only want a quick answer): There's really no good reason to declare a constant as 10U or 0U. Most of the time, you're within the common range of uint and int, so the value of that constant looks exactly the same whether its a uint or an int. The compiler will immediately take your const int expression and convert it to a const uint.
That said, here's the only argument I can give you for the other side: semantics. It's nice to make code semantically coherent. And in that case, if your variable is a uint, it doesn't make sense to set that value to a constant int. If you have a uint variable, it's clearly for a reason, and it should only work with uint values.
That's a pretty weak argument, though, particularly because as a reader, we accept that uint constants usually look like int constants. I like consistency, but there's nothing gained by using the 'U'.
I see this often when using defines to avoid signed/unsigned mismatch warnings. I build a code base for several processors using different tool chains and some of them are very strict.
For instance, removing the ‘u’ in the MAX_PRINT_WIDTH define below:
#define MAX_PRINT_WIDTH (384u)
#define IMAGE_HEIGHT (480u) // 240 * 2
#define IMAGE_WIDTH (320u) // 160 * 2 double density
Gave the following warning:
"..\Application\Devices\MartelPrinter\mtl_print_screen.c", line 106: cc1123: {D} warning:
comparison of unsigned type with signed type
for ( x = 1; (x < IMAGE_WIDTH) && (index <= MAX_PRINT_WIDTH); x++ )
You will probably also see ‘f’ for float vs. double.
I extracted this sentence from a comment, because it's a widely believed incorrect statement, and also because it gives some insight into why explicitly marking unsigned constants as such is a good habit.
...it seems like it would only be useful to keep it when I think overflow might be an issue? But then again, haven't I gone some ways to mitigating for that by specifying unsigned in the first place...
Now, let's consider some code:
int something = get_the_value();
// Compute how many 8s are necessary to reach something
unsigned count = (something + 7) / 8;
So, does the unsigned mitigate potential overflow? Not at all.
Let's suppose something turns out to be INT_MAX (or close to that value). Assuming a 32-bit machine, we might expect count to be 229, or 268,435,456. But it's not.
Telling the compiler that the result of the computation should be unsigned has no effect whatsoever on the typing of the computation. Since something is an int, and 7 is an int, something + 7 will be computed as an int, and will overflow. Then the overflowed value will be divided by 8 (also using signed arithmetic), and whatever that works out to be will be converted to an unsigned and assigned to count.
With GCC, arithmetic is actually performed in 2s complement so the overflow will be a very large negative number; after the division it will be a not-so-large negative number, and that ends up being a largish unsigned number, much larger than the one we were expecting.
Suppose we had specified 7U instead (and maybe 8U as well, to be consistent). Now it works.. It works because now something + 7U is computed with unsigned arithmetic, which doesn't overflow (or even wrap around.)
Of course, this bug (and thousands like it) might go unnoticed for quite a lot of time, blowing up (perhaps literally) at the worst possible moment...
(Obviously, making something unsigned would have mitigated the problem. Here, that's pretty obvious. But the definition might be quite a long way from the use.)
One reason you should do this for trivial code1 is that the suffix forces a type on the literal, and the type may be very important to produce the correct result.
Consider this bit of (somewhat silly) code:
#define magic_number(x) _Generic((x), \
unsigned int : magic_number_unsigned, \
int : magic_number_signed \
)(x)
unsigned magic_number_unsigned(unsigned) {
// ...
}
unsigned magic_number_signed(int) {
// ...
}
int main(void) {
unsigned magic = magic_number(10u);
}
It's not hard to imagine those function actually doing something meaningful based on the type of their argument. Had I omitted the suffix, the generic selection would have produced a wrong result for a very trivial call.
1 But perhaps not the particular code in your post.
In this case, it's completely useless.
In other cases, a suffix might be useful. For instance:
#include <stdio.h>
int
main()
{
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(123));
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(123LL));
return 0;
}
On my system, it will print 4 then 8.
But back to your code, yes it makes your code more explicit, nothing more.
Can I set all bits in an unsigned variable of any width to 1s without triggering a sign conversion error (-Wsign-conversion) using the same literal?
Without -Wsign-conversion I could:
#define ALL_BITS_SET (-1)
uint32_t mask_32 = ALL_BITS_SET;
uint64_t mask_64 = ALL_BITS_SET;
uintptr_t mask_ptr = ALL_BITS_SET << 12; // here's the narrow problem!
But with -Wsign-conversion I'm stumped.
error: negative integer implicitly converted to unsigned type [-Werror=sign-conversion]
I've tried (~0) and (~0U) but no dice. The preprocessor promotes the first to int, which triggers -Wsign-conversion, and the second doesn't promote past 32 bits and only sets the lower 32 bits of the 64 bit variable.
Am I out of luck?
EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm using the defined ALL_BITS_SET in many places throughout the project, so I hesitate to litter the source with things like (~(uint32_t)0) and (~(uintptr_t)0).
one's complement change all zeros to ones, and vise versa.
so try
#define ALL_BITS_SET (~(0))
uint32_t mask_32 = ALL_BITS_SET;
uint64_t mask_64 = ALL_BITS_SET;
Try
uint32_t mask_32 = ~((uint32_t)0);
uint64_t mask_64 = ~((uint64_t)0);
uintptr_t mask_ptr = ~((uintptr_t)0);
Maybe clearer solutions exist - this one being a bit pedantic but confident it meets your needs.
The reason you're getting the warning "negative integer implicitly converted to unsigned type" is that 0 is a literal integer value. As a literal integer value, it of type int, which is a signed type, so (~(0)), as an all-bits-one value of type int, has the value of (int)-1. The only way to convert a negative value to an unsigned value non-implicitly is, of course, to do it explicitly, but you appear to have already rejected the suggestion of using a type-appropriate cast. Alternative options:
Obviously, you can also eliminate the implicit conversion to unsigned type by negating an unsigned 0... (~(0U)) but then you'd only have as many bits as are in an unsigned int
Write a slightly different macro, and use the macro to declare your variables
`#define ALL_BITS_VAR(type,name) type name = ~(type)0`
`ALL_BITS_VAR(uint64_t,mask_32);`
But that still only works for declarations.
Someone already suggested defining ALL_BITS_SET using the widest available type, which you rejected on the grounds of having an absurdly strict dev environment, but honestly, that's by far the best way to do it. If your development environment is really so strict as to forbid assignment of an unsigned value to an unsigned variable of a smaller type, (the result of which is very clearly defined and perfectly valid), then you really don't have a choice anymore, and have to do something type-specific:
#define ALL_BITS_ONE(type) (~(type)0)
uint32_t mask_32 = ALL_BITS_SET(uint32_t);
uint64_t mask_64 = ALL_BITS_SET(uint64_t);
uintptr_t mask_ptr = ALL_BITS_SET(uintptr_t) << 12;
That's all.
(Actually, that's not quite all... since you said that you're using GCC, there's some stuff you could do with GCC's typeof extension, but I still don't see how to make it work without a function macro that you pass a variable to.)
When I read someone's code I find that he bothered to write an explicite type cast.
#define ULONG_MAX ((unsigned long int) ~(unsigned long int) 0)
When I write code
1 #include<stdio.h>
2 int main(void)
3 {
4 unsigned long int max;
5 max = ~(unsigned long int)0;
6 printf("%lx",max);
7 return 0;
8 }
it works as well. Is it just a meaningless coding style?
The code you read is very bad, for several reasons.
First of all user code should never define ULONG_MAX. This is a reserved identifier and must be provided by the compiler implementation.
That definition is not suitable for use in a preprocessor #if. The _MAX macros for the basic integer types must be usable there.
(unsigned long)0 is just crap. Everybody should just use 0UL, unless you know that you have a compiler that is not compliant with all the recent C standards with that respect. (I don't know of any.)
Even ~0UL should not be used for that value, since unsigned long may (theoretically) have padding bits. -1UL is more appropriate, because it doesn't deal with the bit pattern of the value. It uses the guaranteed arithmetic properties of unsigned integer types. -1 will always be the maximum value of an unsigned type. So ~ may only be used in a context where you are absolutely certain that unsigned long has no padding bits. But as such using it makes no sense. -1 serves better.
"recasting" an expression that is known to be unsigned long is just superfluous, as you observed. I can't imagine any compiler that bugs on that.
Recasting of expression may make sense when they are used in the preprocessor, but only under very restricted circumstances, and they are interpreted differently, there.
#if ((uintmax_t)-1UL) == SOMETHING
..
#endif
Here the value on the left evalues to UINTMAX_MAX in the preprocessor and in later compiler phases. So
#define UINTMAX_MAX ((uintmax_t)-1UL)
would be an appropriate definition for a compiler implementation.
To see the value for the preprocessor, observe that there (uintmax_t) is not a cast but an unknown identifier token inside () and that it evaluates to 0. The minus sign is then interpreted as binary minus and so we have 0-1UL which is unsigned and thus the max value of the type. But that trick only works if the cast contains a single identifier token, not if it has three as in your example, and if the integer constant has a - or + sign.
They are trying to ensure that the type of the value 0 is unsigned long. When you assign zero to a variable, it gets cast to the appropriate type.
In this case, if 0 doesn't happen to be an unsigned long then the ~ operator will be applied to whatever other type it happens to be and the result of that will be cast.
This would be a problem if the compiler decided that 0 is a short or char.
However, the type after the ~ operator should remain the same. So they are being overly cautious with the outer cast, but perhaps the inner cast is justified.
They could of course have specified the correct zero type to begin with by writing ~0UL.