I found a bug in code (the if statement should have had "==" instad of "=") and I have few questions.
Example code:
int i = 5;
if (i = MyFunction()) // MyFunction() returns an int; this is where bug was made
{
// call A()
}
else
{
// call B()
}
From what I gather it should always call A().
1. Is my assumption correct()?
2. Is this case for all/most compilers (any exceptions)?
No, it will only call A() if the assignment is considered true, i.e. non-zero.
Yes, this is standard. It's not a very good way to write the code since the risk of confusion is large.
Some people flip comparisons, writing the constant to the left, to avoid the risk:
if( 12 == x )
but of course this wouldn't have worked in your case, since it really is an assignment. Most compilers can give you a warning when this code is detected, since it's so often a cause of bugs.
If MyFunction() returns zero (0) it will call B(); otherwise it will call A(). The value of an assignment expression is the value that is assigned to the left hand side; in an if statement 0 is treated as false and all other values as true.
This is perfectly legitimate code, although many compilers will issue a warning. The reason it is valid is that in C and similar languages, assignment is an expression (rather than a statement).
If you intended to assign to i and test the return value you should write if ((i = MyFunction())); the extra parentheses signal to the compiler (and to the reader) that the assignment is intended.
If instead you intend to test against the value of i you should write if (MyFunction() == i); by putting the function call on the left you ensure that if you miss out the double equals sign the code will fail to compile (MyFunction() = i is not usually a valid expression).
This statement is an assignment:
i = MyFunction()
The if statement is in effect checking the value of i. If MyFunction() returns 0, i is assigned 0 and it becomes equivalent to:
if(0)
This evaluates to false, and A() will not be called in this case
It will take the true branch (i.e. call A) if the function return is non-zero. Zero is treated as false so if MyFunction() returns zero it will call B instead.
In practice, yes this is correct for most / all compilers. I think 0=false was just a convention; I wouldn't be surprised if it is now formalised in C99 or later but I don't have a copy handy to refer you to the right section.
Your assumption is incorrect.
The expression in the if-condition is evaluated like any other expression, in your case the result of (i = MyFunction()) is the return value of MyFunction().
You code will evaluate
(i = MyFunction())
and if MyFunction() returns a non zero value, the expression will be evaluated as true and call A(). Otherwise B()
Related
So I've seen this used before some of my profs code aswel as in some of my friends who have more experience with programming.
int number = 0;
while(number) {
a bunch of code
}
My understanding is that this while loop is essentially running with no condition, i feel like it should be
while(number = 0) {
Isnt this essentially creating an infinite loop? but in the cases I've seen it used it can break out of the loop somehow.
edit:
do while that uses the argument in question. Note that the 2 functions being called in the switch case will call searchpatientdata again once they have completed.
This code is not currently wokring, but was working in a previous build and this function was the same. They also do not change the selection variable either.
The condition in a while loop can be any expression of scalar (numeric or pointer) type. The condition is treated as false if the result of evaluating the expression is equal to zero, true if it's non-zero. (For a pointer expression, a null pointer is equal to zero).
So while (number) means while (number != 0).
As a matter of style, I prefer to use an explicit comparison unless the variable is logically a Boolean condition (either something of type bool or _Bool, or something of some integer type whose only meaning values are true and false) -- but not everyone shares my opinion, and while (foo) is a very common way to write while (foo != 0).
The same applies to the condition in an if, a do-while, or a for statement.
Note that in your example:
int number = 0;
while(number) {
// a bunch of code
}
the body of the loop will never execute, because number is equal to zero when the loop is entered. More realistically, you might have:
int number = some_value;
while (number) {
// a bunch of code *that can change the value of number*
}
Any place in C where a Boolean value is required, any number will be evaluated like this:
zero → false
not zero → true
From C reference
Executes a statement repeatedly, until the value of expression becomes equal to zero. The test takes place before each iteration.
How it works?
entry control loop
condition is checked before loop execution
never execute loop
if condition is false there is no semicolon at the end of while
statement
Come to point as per OP's question yes
While (Variable_name) evaluated as True
In below Example While loop executes until condition is true
Example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
int main(void)
{
int num=1;
while(true)
{
if(num==5)
{
break;
}
printf("%d\n",num);
num++;
}
return 0;
}
#include <stdio.h>
void main()
{
int x = 0;
if (x = 0)
printf("It's zero\n");
else
printf("It's not zero\n");
}
Why is the statement if (x = 0) not an error? Can we assign a value like that in an if statement? Why is it not generating an error, and why is the else statement getting executed?
Yes, it is allowed to assign the value inside the if statement. This is very handy, among other things, when you want to call the function and check it's return for error:
int rc;
if ((rc = check())) {
// here rc is non-zero, often an indication of a failure
}
Note how I've put an extra pair of parenthesis around my assignment - since it is such an omnipresent source of confusion, compilers are usually warning about assignement in the if block, assuming you might have made a typo. Extra pair of parenthesis makes it clear for compiler that this is what I intended.
By the way, there is no special exception crafted here, validity of this syntax stems from general C grammar - an assignment operator evaluates to assigned value.
Yes, this is a perfectly valid syntax, there is no reason to disallow this.
Quoting C11,
[...] An
assignment expression has the value of the left operand after the assignment. [...]
So, the value which is stored in the LHS operand, would be used for the if statement condition evaluation.
In your case, the variable x holds the value 0 after the assignment, and if (0) is FALSY, that's why the else block gets executed.
However, most of the time, this syntax is used wrongly, instead of the comparison. That's why most of the compilers emit a warning message on this construct.
warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value [-Wparentheses]
if (x = 0)
^
If you're sure what you're doing, you can wrap the if condition with an assignment expression in an additional pair of parenthesis, and you'll be good to go.
In C, the only requirement for an if statement is that it contains an expression. The truth of the statement is based on whether or not the expression evaluates to zero.
The assignment operator also evaluates to the assigned value, so if(a = 0) would be false, whereas if(a = x) where x != 0 would be true.
Since the assignment operator is an expression, it is acceptable to place in an if statement, though a frequent beginner mistake is to use the assignment operator where they intended to use the equality test operator ==.
One way you can avoid this is mistake is, if either side of the comparison is an r-value, put that on the left, so that if you ever accidentally use = where you meant ==, you will get a compilation error. Compare:
if(p = NULL) // Valid syntax
...
if(NULL = p) // Syntax error
...
Let's consider the following C code snippet.
while(!var_can_be_0_or_1 && foo_returns_0_or_1(arg1, arg2)) {
body;
}
it's a simple while condition statement which does what I am failing to understand. But let's say I have two macros
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
Can someone please tell me(or rather explain to me) what are we checking under the condition in this while loop here? I mean in what condition/s the loop body will execute and in which condition/s it will skip?
Elaboration
I found it in a book about Data Structures in a program which converts an infix expression string into a postfix one. The exact code was something like this --->
int prcd(char char);
int und, outpos;
char symb, topsymb;
while(!und && prcd(topsymb, symb)) { <----- Stuck on this one real bad
postr[outpos++] = topsymb;
popandtest(&opstk, &topsymb, &und);
}
The elaboration is probably unnecessary but just to put things into context.
;)
EDIT :
I'm really sorry if the question was somewhat unclear to people who are trying to help, so I'll explain a little bit more about what I am really asking here
Let's forget the code I wrote in the elaborate portion of this text and go back to the first one and let's just say we have a while loop , plain and simple while loop
while(!condition1 && condition2) {
execute some codes;
}
Here, condition1 = und, und is an int whose value can be either 0 or 1(and NOTHING ELSE). 0 and 1 are macroed to FALSE and TRUE respectively. And condition2 = prcd(topsymb, symb) ; it's a function whose prototype is mentioned as int prcd(char char);. Again it returns either 0 or 1 and NOTHING ELSE.
Now what I want to know is how the condition inside the while loop brackets gets evaluated.
Hope this clears things up. :)
I mean in what condition/s the loop body will execute and in which
condition/s it will skip
body will execute if var_can_be_0_or_1 is false (i.e. 0) AND the return value of the function foo_returns_0_or_1 is true (i.e. not 0).
If either criteria are not met then body will be skipped.
I am unsure if this is what you are looking for, but here is what I believe you want:
while(!var_can_be_0_or_1 && // if this is '0', continue; else exit
foo_returns_0_or_1(a, b) // if this is NOT '0', continue; else exit
Does this help?
Using your macros, this is similar to writing
while (var_can_be_0_or_1 == FALSE && foo_returns_0_or_1 == TRUE)
I say similar because, if the function foo_returns_0_or_1 does NOT return a 1, but instead returns some other number, then your TRUE macro will not match, and the condition test will fail, as written above.
C does not require you to write the equality (== TRUE), but rather can evaluate on the output of the function or the state of the variable, if it is an int, and is the better choice for this statement.
As #John Bode notes, if the first condition fails, then the second condition will never be tested. Since this is a function, then it is possible that the function will never be called.
The && operator forces left-to-right evaluation. !var_can_be_0_or_1 will be fully evaluated (and any side effects applied); if the result of the expression is non-zero (true), then foo_returns_0_or_1(arg1, arg2) will be evaluated. If the result of that expression is also non-zero (true), then the body of the loop will be executed, otherwise the loop will exit.
I think this is some pseudo code with missing pre conditions, because it won't compile as is.
if 'und' is global then it must be initialized to zero and the while loop will always be TRUE, if inside function this must be initialized with garbage because it is allocated on stack and hence the behavior is unpredictable.
Similarly, missing definition of prcd(), it is hard to suggest what it returns.
I think your need to correct the question with proper inputs.
The following code is here with keep the C Language Syntax:
#include <stdio.h>
int func(int a, int b){
if (b==0)
return 0;
else return func(a,b);
}
int main(){
printf("%d \n", func(func(1,1),func(0,0)));
return 0;
}
What is the output of this code at 1) run with standard C, 2) with any
language that has call by need property, Then:
in (1) the programs loop into infinite call and in (2) we have ouptut zero !! this is an example solved by TA in programming language course, any idea to
describe it for me? thanks
1) In C (which uses strict evaluation semantics) we get infinite recursion because in strict evaluation arguments are evaluated before a function is called. So in f(f(1,1), f(0,0)) f(1,1) and f(0,0) are evaluated before the outer f (which one of the two arguments is evaluated first is unspecified in C, but that does not matter). And since f(1,1) causes infinite recursion, we get infinite recursion.
2) In a language using non-strict evaluation (be it call-by-name or call-by-need) arguments are substituted into the function body unevaluated and are only evaluated when and if they're needed. So the outer call to f is evaluated first as such:
if (f(0, 0) == 0)
return 0;
else return f(f(1,1), f(0,0));
So when evaluating the if, we need to evaluate f(0,0), which simply evaluates to 0. So we go into the then-branch of the if and never execute the else-branch. Since all calls to f are only used in the else-branch, they're never needed and thus never evaluated. So there's no recursion, infinite or otherwise, and we just get 0.
With C, in general, it is not defined the order of arguments a and b evaluation with a function like int func(int a, int b)
Obviously evaluating func(1,1) is problematic and the code suffers from that regardless if func(1,1) is evaluated before/after/simultaneous with func(0,0)
Analysis of func(a,b) based on need may conclude that if b==0, no need to call func() and then replace with 0.
printf("%d \n", func(func(1,1),func(0,0)));
// functionally then becomes
printf("%d \n", func(func(1,1),0));
Applied again and
// functionally then becomes
printf("%d \n", 0);
Of course this conclusion is not certain as the analysis of b != 0 and else return func(a,b); leads to infinite recursion. Such code may have a useful desired side-effect (e.g. stack-overflow and system reset.) So the analysis may need to be conservative and not assume func(1,1) will ever return and not optimize out the call even if it optimized out the func(0,0) call.
To address the first part,
The C Draft, 6.5.2.2->10(Function calls) says
The order of evaluation of ... the actual arguments... is unspecified.
and for such reason, something such as
printf("%d%d",i++,++i);
has undefined behaviour, because
both ++i and i++ has side-effects, ie incrementing the value of i by one.
The comma inside printf is just a separator and NOT a [ sequence point ].
Even though function call itself is a sequence point, for the above reason, the order in which two modifications of i take place is not defined.
In your case
func(func(1,1),func(0,0))
though, the arguments for outer func ie func(1,1) or func(0,0) have no bearing on each other contrary to the case shown above. Any order of evaluation of these arguments eventually leads to infinite recursion and so the program crashes due to depleted memory.
About the expression statement(an example)
i = 1;
it is said that after assigning 1 to i the value of entire expression is being discarded. If the value is discarded then how this can be used later in the program,for example
printf("%d",i);
?
I know this is very basic question but I am really confused with discarded.
The value of the expression is indeed discarded, but this expression has a side effect - it changes the value of i. So next time you will access this variable, you will read the new value, which is 1.
The term "discarded" is more helpful when you do things like foo(5); or even simply "hello";. Since the expression "hello" does not have any side effect, and its value is dicarded, it is does absolutely nothing. When a compiler encounters it, as a stand alone statement:
"hello";
It may simply ignore it altogether, as if it does not exist at all. This is what happens when you call functions, or use operators:
4+5;
sin(2.6);
These expressions, too, have no side effect, and their values are ignored. When you do something like
printf("hello");
This is an expression, too. Its value is the total number of characters written. This value is ignored. But the expression must not be comletely ignored, since it has an important side effect: it prints these characters to the standard output.
So let's build a function instead of using the assignment operator (since C has no references, we'll use pointers):
int assign_int(int* var, int value) {
*var = value;
return *var;
}
now, back to your example, you do something like:
assign_int(&i, 1);
the value returned from assign_int is discarded. Just like in the printf() case. But since the function assign_int has a side effect (changing the value of i), it is not ignored by the compiler.
The important point is the i = 1 has two properties.
It changes the value stored in the variable i to be 1
It is an expression and has a value (which is also 1);
That second part is interesting is a case like
if ( (i=1) == 2 ) { // ...
or
y = 3 + (i = 1); // assign 4 to y
The line
the value of entire expression is being discarded.
refers to the value of the expression (my #2), but does not affect assignment to variable i (my #1).