This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Could anyone explain these undefined behaviors (i = i++ + ++i , i = i++, etc…)
#include<stdio.h>
void call(int,int,int);
int main(){
int a=10;
call(a,a++,++a);
return 0;
}
void call(int x,int y,int z){
printf("x=%d y=%d z=%d\n",x,y,z);
}
This code is giving me output of 12 11 12 when run it. Could someone explain exactly how this is happening?
The behaviour of your code is undefined since you're changing a twice between sequence points:
call(a,a++,++a);
The behaviour is undefined because changing a variable twice between two sequence points.
c99 standard : 5.1.2.3 Program execution
2
"Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object, modifying a file, or calling a function
that does any of those operations are all `side effects` which are changes in the state of
the `execution environment`. Evaluation of an expression may produce side effects. At
certain specified points in the execution sequence called `sequence points`, all side effects
of previous evaluations shall be complete and no side effects of subsequent evaluations
shall have taken place."
Here you are modifying a variable a twice between two sequence points.
Extended EDIT : If you know these concept already and thinking about that , comma operator is a sequence point so it should work as a well definedprogram.Then you are wrong , used here in function call is comma separator not comma operator
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why are these constructs using pre and post-increment undefined behavior?
(14 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I'm not able to understand, why this code produces this output. Can anyone help me with this??
#include <stdio.h>
int main( void )
{
int num = 5;
printf( "%d %d %d", num, ++num, num++ );
}
The output will be 7 7 5 (and NOT 5 6 7)
Making side effects happen in the same order as in some other compiler.
It is never safe to depend on the order of evaluation of side effects. For example, a function call like this may very well behave differently from one compiler to another:
void func (int, int);
int i = 2;
func (i++, i++);
There is no guarantee (in either the C or the C++ standard language definitions) that the increments will be evaluated in any particular order. Either increment might happen first. func might get the arguments ‘2, 3’, or it might get ‘3, 2’, or even ‘2, 2’.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Non-bugs.html
This question already has answers here:
Why are these constructs using pre and post-increment undefined behavior?
(14 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
here is very simple c program:
int main()
{
int i = 22;
printf("%d %d %d",i,i++,i);
return 0;
}
The result is:
23 22 23
how exactly post increment is working here ?
You cannot test correctly in this context.
The order of parameter evaluation for function parameters is undefined, hence you will have platform-dependent results.
The way i++ works actually is by first returning the old value and later incrementing, but that is a bad test.
Judging by the result you got, i++ is evaluated and returns the pre- incremented value. Then, the value of i, the return value of i++, and the value of i are passed to the print function.
This isn't ever something that you should rely on, as you may get different answers on different compilers or even with different optimization settings. As in the other answer, the order of parameter evaluation is undefined behavior.
This question already has answers here:
Why are these constructs using pre and post-increment undefined behavior?
(14 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I am executing this c program on gcc compiler and getting strange results.
So how is it possible
code:
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int i;
i =10;
printf(" %d %d %d ",i++,i++,i); //output : 11 10 12
return 0;
}
as per me result should be 10 11 12 but I am getting 11 10 12.
How is it possible?
In C++, the order of evaluation of function arguments is undefined so if you use the increment operator multiple times in the argument to a particular function there is no 'correct' answer, they may be evaluated in any arbitrary order.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of Sequence points. Only at such defined sequence points is guaranteed that all side effects of previous evaluations are performed. There are no sequence points between the list of arguments of a function. So, it leads to undefined behavior.
This question already has answers here:
Why are these constructs using pre and post-increment undefined behavior?
(14 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
C code related to the question:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int k = 0;
double b = k++ + ++k + k--;
printf("%d", k);
return 0;
}
The value stored in b is undefined, but what about k?
The place where I found this:
http://www.sanfoundry.com/online-c-test-precedence-order-evaluation/ Question #10
--EDIT--
What I found so far:
The value stored in b is not used anywhere, so if storing something into b would be the only UB, this program would not depend on UB.
But I also found this part in C99 6.5.2:
"Between the previous and next sequence point an object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression."
And listed under J.2. Undefined behavior:
" The behavior is undefined .... ‘‘shall’’ or ‘‘shall not’’ requirement that appears outside of a constraint is violated"
But the actual question is not answered yet.
-- EDIT #2 --
Not that I'm trying to write one, but a ''A strictly conforming program'' according to the standard :
"shall not produce output dependent on any unspecified, undefined, or implementation-defined behavior"
So the orignal example was wrong, since it did depend on undefined behaviour, it would be undefined even if one would replace the line
double b = k++ + ++k + k--;
with the line
k++ + ++k + k--;
So right now I'm looking for a better presentation of what question is about.
As soon as we hit undefined behaviour, the compiler can do whatever it wants to - including formatting the disk if it has access rights. So nothing can be defined in this situation, including side effects.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Could anyone explain these undefined behaviors (i = i++ + ++i , i = i++, etc…)
int main()
{
int a=1;
printf("%d %d %d",a,a++,++a);
return 0;
}
The above code is giving output 3 2 3 why????
It actually undefined in c and c++.
Undefined : modifying a scalar value twice between sequence points, which is what your code is doing. f(i++, ++i) is undefined behaviour because it modifies i twice without an intervening sequence point.
A good list of definitions
This is undefined behaviour
a++, ++a is done in same sequence point and this is undefined behaviour.
From Undefined behavior and sequence points :
In the Standard in §5/4 says
Between the previous and next sequence point a scalar object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of
an expression.
What does it mean?
Informally it means that between two sequence points a variable must not be modified more than once. In an expression statement, the next sequence point is usually at the terminating semicolon, and the previous sequence point is at the end of the previous statement. An expression may also contain intermediate sequence points.
The mechanics of pre- and postincrementing are described here : http://c-faq.com/expr/evalorder2.html . However, this expression is undefined as mentioned in the previous answers.