Can you tell me what exactly does the u after a number, for example:
#define NAME_DEFINE 1u
Integer literals like 1 in C code are always of the type int. int is the same thing as signed int. One adds u or U (equivalent) to the literal to ensure it is unsigned int, to prevent various unexpected bugs and strange behavior.
One example of such a bug:
On a 16-bit machine where int is 16 bits, this expression will result in a negative value:
long x = 30000 + 30000;
Both 30000 literals are int, and since both operands are int, the result will be int. A 16-bit signed int can only contain values up to 32767, so it will overflow. x will get a strange, negative value because of this, rather than 60000 as expected.
The code
long x = 30000u + 30000u;
will however behave as expected.
It is a way to define unsigned literal integer constants.
It is a way of telling the compiler that the constant 1 is meant to be used as an unsigned integer. Some compilers assume that any number without a suffix like 'u' is of int type. To avoid this confusion, it is recommended to use a suffix like 'u' when using a constant as an unsigned integer. Other similar suffixes also exist. For example, for float 'f' is used.
it means "unsigned int", basically it functions like a cast to make sure that numeric constants are converted to the appropriate type at compile-time.
A decimal literal in the code (rules for octal and hexadecimal literals are different, see https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/integer_constant) has one of the types int, long or long long. From these, the compiler has to choose the smallest type that is large enough to hold the value. Note that the types char, signed char and short are not considered. For example:
0 // this is a zero of type int
32767 // type int
32768 // could be int or long: On systems with 16 bit integers
// the type will be long, because the value does not fit in an int there.
If you add a u suffix to such a number (a capital U will also do), the compiler will instead have to choose the smallest type from unsigned int, unsigned long and unsigned long long. For example:
0u // a zero of type unsigned int
32768u // type unsigned int: always fits into an unsigned int
100000u // unsigned int or unsigned long
The last example can be used to show the difference to a cast:
100000u // always 100000, but may be unsigned int or unsigned long
(unsigned int)100000 // always unsigned int, but not always 100000
// (e.g. if int has only 16 bit)
On a side note: There are situations, where adding a u suffix is the right thing to ensure correctness of computations, as Lundin's answer demonstrates. However, there are also coding guidelines that strictly forbid mixing of signed and unsigned types, even to the extent that the following statement
unsigned int x = 0;
is classified as non-conforming and has to be written as
unsigned int x = 0u;
This can lead to a situation where developers that deal a lot with unsigned values develop the habit of adding u suffixes to literals everywhere. But, be aware that changing signedness can lead to different behavior in various contexts, for example:
(x > 0)
can (depending on the type of x) mean something different than
(x > 0u)
Luckily, the compiler / code checker will typically warn you about suspicious cases. Nevertheless, adding a u suffix should be done with consideration.
Related
Original question
I have a piece of code here:
unsigned long int a =100000;
int a =100000UL;
Do the above two lines represent the same thing?
Revised question
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
long int x=50000*1024000;
printf("%ld\n",x);
return 0;
}
For a long int, my compiler uses 8 bytes, so the max range is (2^63-1). So here 50000*1024000 results in something which is definitely less than the max range of long int So why does my compiler warn of overflow and give the wrong output?
Original question
The two definitions are not the same.
The types of the variables are different — unsigned long versus (signed) int. The behaviour of these types is quite different because of the difference in signedness. They also may have quite different ranges of valid values.
Technically, the numeric constants are different too; the first is a (signed) int unless int cannot hold the value 100,000, in which case it will be (signed) long instead. That will be converted to unsigned long and assigned to the first a. The other constant is an unsigned long value because of the UL integer suffix, and will be converted to int using the normal rules. If int cannot hold the value 100,000, the normal conversion rules will apply. It is legitimate, though very unusual these days, for sizeof(int) == 2 * sizeof(CHAR_BIT) where CHAR_BIT is 8 — so int is a 16-bit signed type. This is normally treated as a short and normally int is a 32-bit signed type, but the standard does not rule out the alternative.
Most likely, the two variants of a both end up holding the value 100,000, but they are not the same because of the difference in signedness.
Revised question
The arithmetic is done in terms of the two operands of the * operator, and those are 50000 and 1024000. Each of those fits in a 32-bit int, so the calculation is done as int — and the result would be 51200000000, but that requires at least 36 bits to represent the value, so you have 32-bit arithmetic overflow, and the result is undefined behaviour.
After the arithmetic is complete, the int result is converted to 64-bit long — not before.
The compiler is correct to warn, and because you invoked undefined behaviour, anything that is printed is 'correct'.
To fix the code, you can write:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
long x = 50000L * 1024000L;
printf("%ld\n", x);
return 0;
}
Strictly, you only need one of the two L suffixes, but symmetry suggests using both. You could use one or two (long) casts instead if you prefer. You can save on spaces too, if you wish, but they help the readability of the code.
The long int and int are not necessarily the same, but they might be. Unsigned and signed are not the same thing. Numerical constants can represent the same value without being the same thing, as in 100000 and 100000UL (the former being a signed int, the latter being unsigned long)
From an Example
unsigned long x = 12345678UL
We have always learnt that the compiler needs to see only "long" in the above example to set 4 bytes (in 32 bit) of memory. The question is why is should we use L/UL in long constants even after declaring it to be a long.
When a suffix L or UL is not used, the compiler uses the first type that can contain the constant from a list (see details in C99 standard, clause 6.4.4:5. For a decimal constant, the list is int, long int, long long int).
As a consequence, most of the times, it is not necessary to use the suffix. It does not change the meaning of the program. It does not change the meaning of your example initialization of x for most architectures, although it would if you had chosen a number that could not be represented as a long long. See also codebauer's answer for an example where the U part of the suffix is necessary.
There are a couple of circumstances when the programmer may want to set the type of the constant explicitly. One example is when using a variadic function:
printf("%lld", 1LL); // correct, because 1LL has type long long
printf("%lld", 1); // undefined behavior, because 1 has type int
A common reason to use a suffix is ensuring that the result of a computation doesn't overflow. Two examples are:
long x = 10000L * 4096L;
unsigned long long y = 1ULL << 36;
In both examples, without suffixes, the constants would have type int and the computation would be made as int. In each example this incurs a risk of overflow. Using the suffixes means that the computation will be done in a larger type instead, which has sufficient range for the result.
As Lightness Races in Orbit puts it, the litteral's suffix comes before the assignment. In the two examples above, simply declaring x as long and y as unsigned long long is not enough to prevent the overflow in the computation of the expressions assigned to them.
Another example is the comparison x < 12U where variable x has type int. Without the U suffix, the compiler types the constant 12 as an int, and the comparison is therefore a comparison of signed ints.
int x = -3;
printf("%d\n", x < 12); // prints 1 because it's true that -3 < 12
With the U suffix, the comparison becomes a comparison of unsigned ints. “Usual arithmetic conversions” mean that -3 is converted to a large unsigned int:
printf("%d\n", x < 12U); // prints 0 because (unsigned int)-3 is large
In fact, the type of a constant may even change the result of an arithmetic computation, again because of the way “usual arithmetic conversions” work.
Note that, for decimal constants, the list of types suggested by C99 does not contain unsigned long long. In C90, the list ended with the largest standardized unsigned integer type at the time (which was unsigned long). A consequence was that the meaning of some programs was changed by adding the standard type long long to C99: the same constant that was typed as unsigned long in C90 could now be typed as a signed long long instead. I believe this is the reason why in C99, it was decided not to have unsigned long long in the list of types for decimal constants.
See this and this blog posts for an example.
Because numerical literals are of typicaly of type int. The UL/L tells the compiler that they are not of type int, e.g. assuming 32bit int and 64bit long
long i = 0xffff;
long j = 0xffffUL;
Here the values on the right must be converted to signed longs (32bit -> 64bit)
The "0xffff", an int, would converted to a long using sign extension, resulting in a negative value (0xffffffff)
The "0xffffUL", an unsigned long, would be converted to a long, resulting in a positive value (0x0000ffff)
The question is why is should we use L/UL in long constants even after declaring it to be a long.
Because it's not "after"; it's "before".
First you have the literal, then it is converted to whatever the type is of the variable you're trying to squeeze it into.
They are two objects. The type of the target is designated by the unsigned long keywords, as you've said. The type of the source is designated by this suffix because that's the only way to specify the type of a literal.
Related to this post is why a u.
A reason for u is to allow an integer constant greater than LLONG_MAX in decimal form.
// Likely to generate a warning.
unsigned long long limit63bit = 18446744073709551615; // 2^64 - 1
// OK
unsigned long long limit63bit = 18446744073709551615u;
In ctype.h, line 20, __ismask is defined as:
#define __ismask(x) (_ctype[(int)(unsigned char)(x)])
What does (int)(unsigned char)(x) do? I guess it casts x to unsigned char (to retrieve the first byte only regardless of x), but then why is it cast to an int at the end?
(unsigned char)(x) effectively computes an unsigned char with the value of x % (UCHAR_MAX + 1). This has the effect of giving a positive value (between 0 and UCHAR_MAX). With most implementations UCHAR_MAX has a value of 255 (although the standard permits an unsigned char to support a larger range, such implementations are uncommon).
Since the result of (unsigned char)(x) is guaranteed to be in the range supported by an int, the conversion to int will not change value.
Net effect is the least significant byte, with a positive value.
Some compilers give a warning when using a char (signed or not) type as an array index. The conversion to int shuts the compiler up.
The unsigned char-cast is to make sure the value is within the range 0..255, the resulting value is then used as an index in the _ctype array which is 255 bytes large, see ctype.h in Linux.
A cast to unsigned char safely extracts the least significant CHAR_BITs of x, due to the wraparound properties of an unsigned type. (A cast to char could be undefined if a char is a signed type on a platform: overflowing a signed type is undefined behaviour in c). CHAR_BIT is usually 8.
The cast to int then converts the unsigned char. The standard guarantees that an int can always hold any value that unsigned char can take.
A better alternative, if you wanted to extract the 8 least significant bits would be to apply & 0xFF and cast that result to an unsigned type.
I think char is implementation dependent, either signed or unsigned. So you need to be explicit by writing unsigned char, in order not to cast to a negative number. Then cast to int.
With my compiler, c is 54464 (16 bits truncated) and d is 10176.
But with gcc, c is 120000 and d is 600000.
What is the true behavior? Is the behavior undefined? Or is my compiler false?
unsigned short a = 60000;
unsigned short b = 60000;
unsigned long c = a + b;
unsigned long d = a * 10;
Is there an option to alert on these cases?
Wconversion warns on:
void foo(unsigned long a);
foo(a+b);
but doesn't warn on:
unsigned long c = a + b
First, you should know that in C the standard types do not have a specific precision (number of representable values) for the standard integer types. It only requires a minimal precision for each type. These result in the following typical bit sizes, the standard allows for more complex representations:
char: 8 bits
short: 16 bits
int: 16 (!) bits
long: 32 bits
long long (since C99): 64 bits
Note: The actual limits (which imply a certain precision) of an implementation are given in limits.h.
Second, the type an operation is performed is determined by the types of the operands, not the type of the left side of an assignment (becaus assignments are also just expressions). For this the types given above are sorted by conversion rank. Operands with smaller rank than int are converted to int first. For other operands, the one with smaller rank is converted to the type of the other operand. These are the usual arithmetic conversions.
Your implementation seems to use 16 bit unsigned int with the same size as unsigned short, so a and b are converted to unsigned int, the operation is performed with 16 bit. For unsigned, the operation is performed modulo 65536 (2 to the power of 16) - this is called wrap-around (this is not required for signed types!). The result is then converted to unsigned long and assigned to the variables.
For gcc, I assume this compiles for a PC or a 32 bit CPU. for this(unsigned) int has typically 32 bits, while (unsigned) long has at least 32 bits (required). So, there is no wrap around for the operations.
Note: For the PC, the operands are converted to int, not unsigned int. This because int can already represent all values of unsigned short; unsigned int is not required. This can result in unexpected (actually: implementation defined) behaviour if the result of the operation overflows an signed int!
If you need types of defined size, see stdint.h (since C99) for uint16_t, uint32_t. These are typedefs to types with the appropriate size for your implementation.
You can also cast one of the operands (not the whole expression!) to the type of the result:
unsigned long c = (unsigned long)a + b;
or, using types of known size:
#include <stdint.h>
...
uint16_t a = 60000, b = 60000;
uint32_t c = (uint32_t)a + b;
Note that due to the conversion rules, casting one operand is sufficient.
Update (thanks to #chux):
The cast shown above works without problems. However, if a has a larger conversion rank than the typecast, this might truncate its value to the smaller type. While this can be easily avoided as all types are known at compile-time (static typing), an alternative is to multiply with 1 of the wanted type:
unsigned long c = ((unsigned long)1U * a) + b
This way the larger rank of the type given in the cast or a (or b) is used. The multiplication will be eliminated by any reasonable compiler.
Another approach, avoiding to even know the target type name can be done with the typeof() gcc extension:
unsigned long c;
... many lines of code
c = ((typeof(c))1U * a) + b
a + b will be computed as an unsigned int (the fact that it is assigned to an unsigned long is not relevant). The C standard mandates that this sum will wrap around modulo "one plus the largest unsigned possible". On your system, it looks like an unsigned int is 16 bit, so the result is computed modulo 65536.
On the other system, it looks like int and unsigned int are larger, and therefore capable of holding the larger numbers. What happens now is quite subtle (acknowledge #PascalCuoq): Beacuse all values of unsigned short are representable in int, a + b will be computed as an int. (Only if short and int are the same width or, in some other way, some values of unsigned short cannot be represented as int will the sum will be computed as unsigned int.)
Although the C standard does not specify a fixed size for either an unsigned short or an unsigned int, your program behaviour is well-defined. Note that this is not true for an signed type though.
As a final remark, you can use the sized types uint16_t, uint32_t etc. which, if supported by your compiler, are guaranteed to have the specified size.
In C the types char, short (and their unsigned couterparts) and float should be considered to be as "storage" types because they're designed to optimize the storage but are not the "native" size that the CPU prefers and they are never used for computations.
For example when you have two char values and place them in an expression they are first converted to int, then the operation is performed. The reason is that the CPU works better with int. The same happens for float that is always implicitly converted to a double for computations.
In your code the computation a+b is a sum of two unsigned integers; in C there's no way of computing the sum of two unsigned shorts... what you can do is store the final result in an unsigned short that, thanks to the properties of modulo math, will be the same.
My apologies if the question seems weird. I'm debugging my code and this seems to be the problem, but I'm not sure.
Thanks!
It depends on what you want the behaviour to be. An int cannot hold many of the values that an unsigned int can.
You can cast as usual:
int signedInt = (int) myUnsigned;
but this will cause problems if the unsigned value is past the max int can hold. This means half of the possible unsigned values will result in erroneous behaviour unless you specifically watch out for it.
You should probably reexamine how you store values in the first place if you're having to convert for no good reason.
EDIT: As mentioned by ProdigySim in the comments, the maximum value is platform dependent. But you can access it with INT_MAX and UINT_MAX.
For the usual 4-byte types:
4 bytes = (4*8) bits = 32 bits
If all 32 bits are used, as in unsigned, the maximum value will be 2^32 - 1, or 4,294,967,295.
A signed int effectively sacrifices one bit for the sign, so the maximum value will be 2^31 - 1, or 2,147,483,647. Note that this is half of the other value.
Unsigned int can be converted to signed (or vice-versa) by simple expression as shown below :
unsigned int z;
int y=5;
z= (unsigned int)y;
Though not targeted to the question, you would like to read following links :
signed to unsigned conversion in C - is it always safe?
performance of unsigned vs signed integers
Unsigned and signed values in C
What type-conversions are happening?
IMHO this question is an evergreen. As stated in various answers, the assignment of an unsigned value that is not in the range [0,INT_MAX] is implementation defined and might even raise a signal. If the unsigned value is considered to be a two's complement representation of a signed number, the probably most portable way is IMHO the way shown in the following code snippet:
#include <limits.h>
unsigned int u;
int i;
if (u <= (unsigned int)INT_MAX)
i = (int)u; /*(1)*/
else if (u >= (unsigned int)INT_MIN)
i = -(int)~u - 1; /*(2)*/
else
i = INT_MIN; /*(3)*/
Branch (1) is obvious and cannot invoke overflow or traps, since it
is value-preserving.
Branch (2) goes through some pains to avoid signed integer overflow
by taking the one's complement of the value by bit-wise NOT, casts it
to 'int' (which cannot overflow now), negates the value and subtracts
one, which can also not overflow here.
Branch (3) provides the poison we have to take on one's complement or
sign/magnitude targets, because the signed integer representation
range is smaller than the two's complement representation range.
This is likely to boil down to a simple move on a two's complement target; at least I've observed such with GCC and CLANG. Also branch (3) is unreachable on such a target -- if one wants to limit the execution to two's complement targets, the code could be condensed to
#include <limits.h>
unsigned int u;
int i;
if (u <= (unsigned int)INT_MAX)
i = (int)u; /*(1)*/
else
i = -(int)~u - 1; /*(2)*/
The recipe works with any signed/unsigned type pair, and the code is best put into a macro or inline function so the compiler/optimizer can sort it out. (In which case rewriting the recipe with a ternary operator is helpful. But it's less readable and therefore not a good way to explain the strategy.)
And yes, some of the casts to 'unsigned int' are redundant, but
they might help the casual reader
some compilers issue warnings on signed/unsigned compares, because the implicit cast causes some non-intuitive behavior by language design
If you have a variable unsigned int x;, you can convert it to an int using (int)x.
It's as simple as this:
unsigned int foo;
int bar = 10;
foo = (unsigned int)bar;
Or vice versa...
If an unsigned int and a (signed) int are used in the same expression, the signed int gets implicitly converted to unsigned. This is a rather dangerous feature of the C language, and one you therefore need to be aware of. It may or may not be the cause of your bug. If you want a more detailed answer, you'll have to post some code.
Some explain from C++Primer 5th Page 35
If we assign an out-of-range value to an object of unsigned type, the result is the remainder of the value modulo the number of values the target type can hold.
For example, an 8-bit unsigned char can hold values from 0 through 255, inclusive. If we assign a value outside the range, the compiler assigns the remainder of that value modulo 256.
unsigned char c = -1; // assuming 8-bit chars, c has value 255
If we assign an out-of-range value to an object of signed type, the result is undefined. The program might appear to work, it might crash, or it might produce garbage values.
Page 160:
If any operand is an unsigned type, the type to which the operands are converted depends on the relative sizes of the integral types on the machine.
...
When the signedness differs and the type of the unsigned operand is the same as or larger than that of the signed operand, the signed operand is converted to unsigned.
The remaining case is when the signed operand has a larger type than the unsigned operand. In this case, the result is machine dependent. If all values in the unsigned type fit in the large type, then the unsigned operand is converted to the signed type. If the values don't fit, then the signed operand is converted to the unsigned type.
For example, if the operands are long and unsigned int, and int and long have the same size, the length will be converted to unsigned int. If the long type has more bits, then the unsigned int will be converted to long.
I found reading this book is very helpful.