I don't understand why the output of an unsigned int is negative for the following code.
Just like a signed int.
uint32_t yyy=1<<31;
printf("%d\n",yyy);
The output is:
-2147483648
which is -2^31.
The format specifier for %d expects an int, not an unsigned int, so the code has undefined behaviour. From the C99 standard section 7.19.6.1 The fprintf function:
If any argument is not the correct type for the corresponding conversion specification, the behavior is undefined.
Use %u for unsigned int:
uint32_t yyy=1u<<31;
printf("%u\n",yyy);
Output:
2147483648
It's because your printf argument, as %d, is implicitly converting your number to an int.
Use %u instead.
Use %u to output unsigned numbers:
printf("%u\n", yyy);
As many have said, use the %u identifier.
The reason for this, is that printf has no way of telling what type any of the extra parameters are (they are given as a va_list), so you the programmer have to provide that information using the format string. When you then provide %d, printf will call this:
int val;
val = va_arg(va_list, int);
and implicitly cast your unsigned int into a signed.
Because you are printing it as signed. Use %u instead.
printf takes a variable number of arguments. When you call it the compiler will dutifully put them all on the stack. Because it's C there's no reflection — printf can't subsequently infer the types of things it has received. At the bit level you can't prima facie tell a signed integer from an unsigned integer or a float, a suitably small structure, part of a larger struct, etc.
That's why you also have to supply a format string. It tells printf what types to read from the stack and in what order. It depends entirely on that format string, having no ability to verify it.
Hence, as per the one-line answers already posted, if you tell it to interpret a field as a signed quantity then it'll be printed as a signed quantity.
Integers are stored in Two's Complement format. This means there is no way to tell if the number is signed or unsigned just by looking at the value. You must tell the machine which representation you want it to use and keep track of it yourself.
In your example you tell the machine that jjj is unsigned (for type checking) but then ask printf() to treat it as signed by using %d in the format string (it can't get at the type information). If you want to print an unsigned int use %u instead.
You need to use the unsigned int format specifier:
printf("%u\n",yyy);
^^
using the wrong format specifier for printf is undefined behavior, which is covered in the C99 draft standard section 7.19.6.1 The fprintf function, which also covers printf with respect to format specifiers says:
If a conversion specification is invalid, the behavior is
undefined.248) If any argument is not the correct type for
the corresponding conversion specification, the behavior is undefined.
The cppreference page for printf has a nice table specifying the format specifiers available.
Related
I tried to play with data types in C. My first problem was printf() show negative value with unsigned int. I fixed this with %u instead of %i.
But unsigned char still works with %i, how it is possible?
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
unsigned int a;
unsigned char b;
a = -7;
b = -1
printf("a=%u\nb=%i\n", a, b);
return 0;
}
If you see e.g. this printf (and family) reference you will see that the "%i" format do
converts a signed integer into decimal representation [-]dddd.
[Emphasis not mine]
Since you pass an unsigned int you're having mismatched format specifier and value, which leads to undefined behavior.
Furthermore, for variable argument functions (like printf) arguments smaller than int (like for example char, signed or unsigned) are promoted to int. And again, since the resulting value is an int (which is signed) and you use the "%u" format, there is a mismatch between format specifier and argument type.
As it has been stated before, using 'i' as the format specifier is not correct for a variable of type unsigned char.
Whenever you are unsure of what the correct format would be for any particular (integer) type, you can just take a look at inttypes.h, which contains a bunch of macros meant to be used for portable format strings. Depending on the platform you're developing for, the correct format specifiers might differ (uint16_t could be 'u' or 'hu', int32_t could be 'd' or 'ld' for instance).
You could either use this header as a "cheat sheet", or actually write your format strings like this:
printf("a=%"PRIu32"\nb=%"PRIu8"\n", a, b);
Note that for the code to actually be portable, you would of course also need to use uint8_t instead of unsigned char, and uint32_t instead of int.
Aside from %hn and %hhn (where the h or hh specifies the size of the pointed-to object), what is the point of the h and hh modifiers for printf format specifiers?
Due to default promotions which are required by the standard to be applied for variadic functions, it is impossible to pass arguments of type char or short (or any signed/unsigned variants thereof) to printf.
According to 7.19.6.1(7), the h modifier:
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a
short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will
have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall
be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
or that a following n conversion specifier applies to a pointer to a short
int argument.
If the argument was actually of type short or unsigned short, then promotion to int followed by a conversion back to short or unsigned short will yield the same value as promotion to int without any conversion back. Thus, for arguments of type short or unsigned short, %d, %u, etc. should give identical results to %hd, %hu, etc. (and likewise for char types and hh).
As far as I can tell, the only situation where the h or hh modifier could possibly be useful is when the argument passed it an int outside the range of short or unsigned short, e.g.
printf("%hu", 0x10000);
but my understanding is that passing the wrong type like this results in undefined behavior anyway, so that you could not expect it to print 0.
One real world case I've seen is code like this:
char c = 0xf0;
printf("%hhx", c);
where the author expects it to print f0 despite the implementation having a plain char type that's signed (in which case, printf("%x", c) would print fffffff0 or similar). But is this expectation warranted?
(Note: What's going on is that the original type was char, which gets promoted to int and converted back to unsigned char instead of char, thus changing the value that gets printed. But does the standard specify this behavior, or is it an implementation detail that broken software might be relying on?)
One possible reason: for symmetry with the use of those modifiers in the formatted input functions? I know it wouldn't be strictly necessary, but maybe there was value seen for that?
Although they don't mention the importance of symmetry for the "h" and "hh" modifiers in the C99 Rationale document, the committee does mention it as a consideration for why the "%p" conversion specifier is supported for fscanf() (even though that wasn't new for C99 - "%p" support is in C90):
Input pointer conversion with %p was added to C89, although it is obviously risky, for symmetry with fprintf.
In the section on fprintf(), the C99 rationale document does discuss that "hh" was added, but merely refers the reader to the fscanf() section:
The %hh and %ll length modifiers were added in C99 (see §7.19.6.2).
I know it's a tenuous thread, but I'm speculating anyway, so I figured I'd give whatever argument there might be.
Also, for completeness, the "h" modifier was in the original C89 standard - presumably it would be there even if it wasn't strictly necessary because of widespread existing use, even if there might not have been a technical requirement to use the modifier.
In %...x mode, all values are interpreted as unsigned. Negative numbers are therefore printed as their unsigned conversions. In 2's complement arithmetic, which most processors use, there is no difference in bit patterns between a signed negative number and its positive unsigned equivalent, which is defined by modulus arithmetic (adding the maximum value for the field plus one to the negative number, according to the C99 standard). Lots of software- especially the debugging code most likely to use %x- makes the silent assumption that the bit representation of a signed negative value and its unsigned cast is the same, which is only true on a 2's complement machine.
The mechanics of this cast are such that hexidecimal representations of value always imply, possibly inaccurately, that a number has been rendered in 2's complement, as long as it didn't hit an edge condition of where the different integer representations have different ranges. This even holds true for arithmetic representations where the value 0 is not represented with the binary pattern of all 0s.
A negative short displayed as an unsigned long in hexidecimal will therefore, on any machine, be padded with f, due to implicit sign extension in the promotion, which printf will print. The value is the same, but it is truly visually misleading as to the size of the field, implying a significant amount of range that simply isn't present.
%hx truncates the displayed representation to avoid this padding, exactly as you concluded from your real-world use case.
The behavior of printf is undefined when passed an int outside the range of short that should be printed as a short, but the easiest implementation by far simply discards the high bit by a raw downcast, so while the spec doesn't require any specific behavior, pretty much any sane implementation is going to just perform the truncation. There're generally better ways to do that, though.
If printf isn't padding values or displaying unsigned representations of signed values, %h isn't very useful.
The only use I can think of is for passing an unsigned short or unsigned char and using the %x conversion specifier. You cannot simply use a bare %x - the value may be promoted to int rather than unsigned int, and then you have undefined behaviour.
Your alternatives are either to explicitly cast the argument to unsigned; or to use %hx / %hhx with a bare argument.
The variadic arguments to printf() et al are automatically promoted using the default conversions, so any short or char values are promoted to int when passed to the function.
In the absence of the h or hh modifiers, you would have to mask the values passed to get the correct behaviour reliably. With the modifiers, you no longer have to mask the values; the printf() implementation does the job properly.
Specifically, for the format %hx, the code inside printf() can do something like:
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
...
int i = va_arg(args, int);
unsigned short s = (unsigned short)i;
...print s correctly, as 4 hex digits maximum
...even on a machine with 64-bit `int`!
I'm blithely assuming that short is a 16-bit quantity; the standard does not actually guarantee that, of course.
I found it useful to avoid casting when formatting unsigned chars to hex:
sprintf_s(tmpBuf, 3, "%2.2hhx", *(CEKey + i));
It's a minor coding convenience, and looks cleaner than multiple casts (IMO).
another place it's handy is snprintf size check.
gcc7 added size check when using snprintf
so this will fail
char arr[4];
char x='r';
snprintf(arr,sizeof(arr),"%d",r);
so it forces you to use bigger char when using %d when formatting a char
here is a commit that shows those fixes instead of increasing the char array size they changed %d to %h. this also give more accurate description
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma/commit/b5cb1e34a04b40427d195b14763e462a0a705d23#diff-6258d0a11a435aa372068037fe161d24
I agree with you that it is not strictly necessary, and so by that reason alone is no good in a C library function :)
It might be "nice" for the symmetry of the different flags, but it is mostly counter-productive because it hides the "conversion to int" rule.
Assuming the following:
sizeof(char) = 1
sizeof(short) = 2
sizeof(int) = 4
sizeof(long) = 8
The printf format for a 2 byte signed number is %hd, for a 4 byte signed number is %d, for an 8 byte signed number is %ld, but what is the correct format for a 1 byte signed number?
what is the correct format for a 1 byte signed number?
%hh and the integer conversion specifier of your choice (for example, %02hhX. See the C11 standard, §7.21.6.1p5:
hh
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a signed char or unsigned char argument (the argument will have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall be converted to signed char or unsigned char before printing);…
The parenthesized comment is important. Because of integer promotions on the arguments to variadic functions (such as printf), the function never sees a char argument. Many programmers think that that means that it is unnecessary to use h and hh qualifiers. Certainly, you are not creating undefined behaviour by leaving them out, and most of the time it will work.
However, char may well be signed, and the integer promotion will preserve its value, which will make it into a signed integer. Printing the signed integer out with an unsigned format (such as %02X) will present you with the sign-extended Fs. So if you want to display signed char using an unsigned format, you need to tell printf what the original unpromoted width of the integer type was, using hh.
In case that wasn't clear, a simple example (but controversial) example:
/* Read the comments thread to this post; I'll remove
this note when I edit the outcome of the discussion into
the answer
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
char* s = "\u00d1"; /* Ñ */
for (char* p = s; *p; ++p) printf("%02X (%02hhX)\n", *p, *p);
return 0;
}
Output:
$ ./a.out
FFFFFFC3 (C3)
FFFFFF91 (91)
In the comment thread, there is (or possibly was) considerable discussion about whether the above snippet is undefined behaviour because the X format specification requires an unsigned argument, whereas the char argument is (at least on the implementation which produced the presented output) signed. I think this argument relies on §7.12.6.1/p9: "If any argument is not the correct type for the corresponding conversion specification, the behavior is undefined."
However, in the case of char (and short) integer types, the expression in the argument list is promoted to int or unsigned int before the function is called. (It's worth noting that on most architectures, all three character types will be promoted to a signed int; promotion of an unsigned char (or an unsigned char) to an unsigned int will only happen on an implementation where sizeof(int) == 1.)
So on most architectures, the argument to an %hx or an %hhx format conversion will be signed, and that cannot be undefined behaviour without rendering the use of these format codes meaningless.
Furthermore, the standard does not say that fprintf (and friends) will somehow recover the original expression. What it says is that the value "shall be converted to signed char or unsigned char before printing" (§7.21.6.1/p5, quoted above, emphasis added).
Converting a signed value to an unsigned value is not undefined. It is not even unspecified or implementation-dependent. It simply consists of (conceptually) "repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of the new type." (§6.3.1.3/p2)
So there is a well-defined procedure to convert the argument expression to a (possibly signed) int argument, and a well-defined procedure for converting that value to an unsigned char. I therefore argue that a program such as the one presented above is entirely well-defined.
For corroboration, the behaviour of fprintf given a format specifier %c is defined as follows (§7.21.6.8/p8), emphasis added:
the int argument is converted to an unsigned char, and the resulting character is written.
If one were to apply the proposed restrictive interpretation which renders the above program undefined, then I believe that one would be forced to also argue that:
void f(char c) {
printf("This is a '%c'.\n", c);
}
was also UB. Yet, I think almost every C programmer has written something similar to that without thinking twice about it.
The key part of the question is what is meant by "argument" in §7.12.6.1/p9 (and other parts of §7.12.6.1). The C++ standard is slightly more precise; it specifies that if an argument is subject to the default argument promotions, "the value of the argument is converted to the promoted type before the call" which I interpret to mean that when considering the call (for example, the call of fprintf), the arguments are now the promoted values.
I don't think C is actually different, at least in intent. It uses wording like "the arguments&hellips; are promoted", and in at least one place "the argument after promotion". Furthermore, in the description of variadic functions (the va_arg macro, §7.16.1.1), the constraint on the argument type is annotated parenthetically "the type of the actual next argument (as promoted according to the default argument promotions)".
I'll freely agree that all of this is (a) subtle reading of insufficiently precise language, and (b) counting dancing angels. But I don't see any value in declaring that standard usages like the use of %c with char arguments are "technically" UB; that denatures the concept of UB and it is hard to believe that such a prohibition would be intentional, which leads me to believe that the interpretation was not intended. (And, perhaps, should be corrected editorially.)
scanf needs %lf for doubles and printf is okay with just %f
So, why is printf and scanf okay with %d?
This is what I think the reason is:
A floating point (%f) uses exactly 64 bits whereas a double floating-point number (%lf) uses at least 32. The compiler doesn't know how many bits to assign to a variable that is being scanned in by scanf, so we use %lf to tell the compiler that it needs to be at least 32 bits.
Okay... but then why do we use %d for both scanf and printf? Why not %ld and %d? %ld doesn't exist in C for starters. %d is a signed decimal number that needs at least 16 bits. You're already telling the compiler what the lower bound is in how many bits to allocate to it, so it is okay for scanf. This is also why we don't have a %ld.
Please do correct me if I am wrong or inform me what I can do to make this answer better. I'm pretty sure it is not a perfect answer.
You can think scanf as converting input stream into variables that defined in your code. Thus, scanf needs to know the exactly size for each variable. In general, the 32-bit and 64-bit IEEE 754 binary floating-point formats are used in C. So, %f means 32-bit and %lf means 64-bit.
Besides %ld exists and it means 32-bit integer. %lld also exists which means 64-bit integer. The above wiki site explains all C data types very well.
See §6.5.2.2/6-7 in the C99 standard.
§6.5.2.2/6 defines the default argument promotions: (emphasis added)
the integer promotions are performed on each argument, and arguments that have type float are promoted to double.
and specifies that these promotions are performed on arguments to a function declared with no prototype (that is, with an empty parameter list () instead of (void), where the latter is used to indicate no arguments).
Paragraph 7 additionally specifies that if the prototype of the function has a trailing ellipsis (...):
The ellipsis notation in a function prototype declarator causes argument type conversion to stop after the last declared parameter. The default argument promotions are performed on trailing arguments.
The integer promotions are defined in §6.3.1.1/2; they apply to
objects or expressions of an integer type whose "integer conversion rank is less than or equal to the rank of int and unsigned int": roughly speaking, any smaller integer type, such as boolean or character types;
bit-fields of type _Bool, int, signed int or unsigned 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.
In short, if you have varargs function, such as printf or scanf:
Integer arguments which are no larger than int are converted to (possibly unsigned) int. (This does not include long.)
Floating point arguments which are no larger than double are converted to double. (This includes float.)
Pointers are unaltered.
Other non-pointer types are unaltered.
So printf doesn't need to distinguish between float and double, because it will never be passed a float. It does need to distinguish between int and long.
But scanf does need to know whether an argument is a pointer to a float or a pointer to a double, because pointers are unchanged by the default argument promotions.
Aside from %hn and %hhn (where the h or hh specifies the size of the pointed-to object), what is the point of the h and hh modifiers for printf format specifiers?
Due to default promotions which are required by the standard to be applied for variadic functions, it is impossible to pass arguments of type char or short (or any signed/unsigned variants thereof) to printf.
According to 7.19.6.1(7), the h modifier:
Specifies that a following d, i, o, u, x, or X conversion specifier applies to a
short int or unsigned short int argument (the argument will
have been promoted according to the integer promotions, but its value shall
be converted to short int or unsigned short int before printing);
or that a following n conversion specifier applies to a pointer to a short
int argument.
If the argument was actually of type short or unsigned short, then promotion to int followed by a conversion back to short or unsigned short will yield the same value as promotion to int without any conversion back. Thus, for arguments of type short or unsigned short, %d, %u, etc. should give identical results to %hd, %hu, etc. (and likewise for char types and hh).
As far as I can tell, the only situation where the h or hh modifier could possibly be useful is when the argument passed it an int outside the range of short or unsigned short, e.g.
printf("%hu", 0x10000);
but my understanding is that passing the wrong type like this results in undefined behavior anyway, so that you could not expect it to print 0.
One real world case I've seen is code like this:
char c = 0xf0;
printf("%hhx", c);
where the author expects it to print f0 despite the implementation having a plain char type that's signed (in which case, printf("%x", c) would print fffffff0 or similar). But is this expectation warranted?
(Note: What's going on is that the original type was char, which gets promoted to int and converted back to unsigned char instead of char, thus changing the value that gets printed. But does the standard specify this behavior, or is it an implementation detail that broken software might be relying on?)
One possible reason: for symmetry with the use of those modifiers in the formatted input functions? I know it wouldn't be strictly necessary, but maybe there was value seen for that?
Although they don't mention the importance of symmetry for the "h" and "hh" modifiers in the C99 Rationale document, the committee does mention it as a consideration for why the "%p" conversion specifier is supported for fscanf() (even though that wasn't new for C99 - "%p" support is in C90):
Input pointer conversion with %p was added to C89, although it is obviously risky, for symmetry with fprintf.
In the section on fprintf(), the C99 rationale document does discuss that "hh" was added, but merely refers the reader to the fscanf() section:
The %hh and %ll length modifiers were added in C99 (see §7.19.6.2).
I know it's a tenuous thread, but I'm speculating anyway, so I figured I'd give whatever argument there might be.
Also, for completeness, the "h" modifier was in the original C89 standard - presumably it would be there even if it wasn't strictly necessary because of widespread existing use, even if there might not have been a technical requirement to use the modifier.
In %...x mode, all values are interpreted as unsigned. Negative numbers are therefore printed as their unsigned conversions. In 2's complement arithmetic, which most processors use, there is no difference in bit patterns between a signed negative number and its positive unsigned equivalent, which is defined by modulus arithmetic (adding the maximum value for the field plus one to the negative number, according to the C99 standard). Lots of software- especially the debugging code most likely to use %x- makes the silent assumption that the bit representation of a signed negative value and its unsigned cast is the same, which is only true on a 2's complement machine.
The mechanics of this cast are such that hexidecimal representations of value always imply, possibly inaccurately, that a number has been rendered in 2's complement, as long as it didn't hit an edge condition of where the different integer representations have different ranges. This even holds true for arithmetic representations where the value 0 is not represented with the binary pattern of all 0s.
A negative short displayed as an unsigned long in hexidecimal will therefore, on any machine, be padded with f, due to implicit sign extension in the promotion, which printf will print. The value is the same, but it is truly visually misleading as to the size of the field, implying a significant amount of range that simply isn't present.
%hx truncates the displayed representation to avoid this padding, exactly as you concluded from your real-world use case.
The behavior of printf is undefined when passed an int outside the range of short that should be printed as a short, but the easiest implementation by far simply discards the high bit by a raw downcast, so while the spec doesn't require any specific behavior, pretty much any sane implementation is going to just perform the truncation. There're generally better ways to do that, though.
If printf isn't padding values or displaying unsigned representations of signed values, %h isn't very useful.
The only use I can think of is for passing an unsigned short or unsigned char and using the %x conversion specifier. You cannot simply use a bare %x - the value may be promoted to int rather than unsigned int, and then you have undefined behaviour.
Your alternatives are either to explicitly cast the argument to unsigned; or to use %hx / %hhx with a bare argument.
The variadic arguments to printf() et al are automatically promoted using the default conversions, so any short or char values are promoted to int when passed to the function.
In the absence of the h or hh modifiers, you would have to mask the values passed to get the correct behaviour reliably. With the modifiers, you no longer have to mask the values; the printf() implementation does the job properly.
Specifically, for the format %hx, the code inside printf() can do something like:
va_list args;
va_start(args, format);
...
int i = va_arg(args, int);
unsigned short s = (unsigned short)i;
...print s correctly, as 4 hex digits maximum
...even on a machine with 64-bit `int`!
I'm blithely assuming that short is a 16-bit quantity; the standard does not actually guarantee that, of course.
I found it useful to avoid casting when formatting unsigned chars to hex:
sprintf_s(tmpBuf, 3, "%2.2hhx", *(CEKey + i));
It's a minor coding convenience, and looks cleaner than multiple casts (IMO).
another place it's handy is snprintf size check.
gcc7 added size check when using snprintf
so this will fail
char arr[4];
char x='r';
snprintf(arr,sizeof(arr),"%d",r);
so it forces you to use bigger char when using %d when formatting a char
here is a commit that shows those fixes instead of increasing the char array size they changed %d to %h. this also give more accurate description
https://github.com/Mellanox/libvma/commit/b5cb1e34a04b40427d195b14763e462a0a705d23#diff-6258d0a11a435aa372068037fe161d24
I agree with you that it is not strictly necessary, and so by that reason alone is no good in a C library function :)
It might be "nice" for the symmetry of the different flags, but it is mostly counter-productive because it hides the "conversion to int" rule.