For example, the difference between these two statements:
if ( ucNum++ >= 3 ) // ucNum incremented after comparing its value to 3, correct?
{
ucNum = 0;
}
vs.
ucNum++ >= 3 ? ucNum = 0 : 1; // does incrementing it happen somewhere in the middle of the inline?
Perhaps it is compiler specific. Where should it occur in the conditional expression?
The rules are that the condition is evaluated before choosing which alternative to evaluate. Since part of the evaluation is the ++, the increment will occur before the assignment (if the assignment occurs at all).
As #caf comments, there is a sequence point after the controlling expression. So, while (as David Thornley points out) the order of expression evaluations can be rearranged by the compiler (particularly side effect evaluations), the rearranging cannot cross sequence points.
Well, I've tested this practically (good thing printf returns int) with:
int ucNum = 4;
ucNum++ >= 3 ? printf("%d", ucNum) : 1;
Since the condition is true, it goes to the printf which prints 5. So definitely ucNum is incremented between the evaluation of the condition and the choosing of the return value.
You're looking for 6.5.15/4 in the C Standard. The first expression is completely evaluated, including side effects, before the selected one of the other two. This is not compiler-dependent, except in the sense that some compilers may be broken.
Related
I am a beginner in C and I came across a code which went like this:
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int k=35;
printf("%d %d %d",k==35,k=50,k>40);
return 0;
}
I tried to find the output without writing the code in my computer and 'actually' running it first. So here's how I figured out what the output might be:
In the precedence table, among assignment (==), equality (=) and greater than (>) operators, the greater than operator will be implemented first. So, initially, k=35 and thus k>40 is false (the integer thus will be 0). Next up is the equality operator (==). Now, k==35 is true initially. So this will return an integer 1. Finally, the assignment operator (=) will do its job, set the value of k to 50(and ultimately, returning 50) and the program will exit. Thus, based on this logic, I 'guessed' that final output will be like:
1 50 0
Now I ran the code in my IDE (I'm coming to my IDE a bit later) and the result it gave was:
0 50 0
So, my confusion is, in which order are the operators being implemented?
Any help or hints are very much welcome.
NOTE: I noticed a bit closer and found that the only way possible is: First the > operator does its job, then the = operator and finally, the == operator.
I changed my printf line a bit and wrote:
printf("%d %d %d",k==35,k>40,k=50);
Here, I found that the output was:
0 1 50
which, again was not according to what I 'guessed' initially with my logic.
I tried all the possible ordering of the syntax inside the printf() function. After looking at all those outputs, I doubt: Is the program being implemented in a right-to-left order here irrespective of the ordering in the precedence table?
NOTE: Regarding my IDE, I use Dev C++ 5.11. I use it as our instructor has advised us to use it for our course. As this IDE is not so much well-received among many others, I tried an online compiler, but the results are the same.
The behavior is undefined - the result is not guaranteed to be predictable or repeatable.
First, precedence only controls which operators are grouped with which operands - it does not control the order in which expressions are evaluated.
Second, the order in which function arguments are evaluated is unspecified - they can be evaluated right-to-left, left-to-right, or any other order1.
Finally, you are updating k (k = 50) and attempting to use it in a value computation (k == 35, k > 40) without an intervening sequence point, which is explicitly called out by the language definition as undefined behavior.
So the result can literally be anything, even what you expect it to be. You can’t rely on it to be consistent or predictable.
This is not the same as the order in which they are passed to the function.
printf("%d %d %d",k==35,k=50,k>40);
This is undefined behavior.
The order of evaluation of the arguments is simply unspecified.
See here and here for further explanation.
Order of evaluation of the operands of any C operator, including the order of evaluation of function arguments in a function-call expression, and the order of evaluation of the subexpressions within any expression is unspecified[...]. The compiler will evaluate them in any order, and may choose another order when the same expression is evaluated again.
Given the following program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i = 1, j = 2;
int val = (++i > ++j) ? ++i : ++j;
printf("%d\n", val); // prints 4
return 0;
}
The initialization of val seems like it could be hiding some undefined behavior, but I don't see any point at which an object is either modified more than once or modified and used without a sequence point in between. Could someone
either correct or corroborate me on this?
The behavior of this code is well defined.
The first expression in a conditional is guaranteed to be evaluated before either the second expression or the third expression, and only one of the second or third will be evaluated. This is described in section 6.5.15p4 of the C standard:
The first operand is evaluated; there is a sequence point
between its evaluation and the evaluation of the second or third
operand (whichever is evaluated). The second operand is evaluated
only if the first compares unequal to 0; the third operand is
evaluated only if the first compares equal to 0; the result is
the value of the second or third operand (whichever is
evaluated), converted to the type described below.
In the case of your expression:
int val = (++i > ++j) ? ++i : ++j;
++i > ++j is evaluated first. The incremented values of i and j are used in the comparison, so it becomes 2 > 3. The result is false, so then ++j is evaluated and ++i is not. So the (again) incremented value of j (i.e. 4) is then assigned to val.
too late, but maybe useful.
(++i > ++j) ? ++i : ++j;
In the document ISO/IEC 9899:201xAnnex C(informative)Sequence points we find that there is a sequence point
Between the evaluations of the first operand of the conditional ?: operator and whichever of the second and third operands is evaluated
In order to be well defined behavior one must not modify 2 times (via side-effects) the same object between 2 sequence points.
In your expression the only conflict that could appear would be between the first and second ++i or ++j.
At every sequence point the value last stored in the object shall agree with that prescribed by the abstract machine (this is what you would compute on paper, like on a turing machine).
Quote from 5.1.2.3p3 Program execution
The presence of a sequence point between the evaluation of expressions A and B implies that every value computation and side effect associated with A is sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with B.
When you have side-effects in your code, they are sequenced by different expressions. The rule says that between 2 sequence points you can permute these expressions as you wish.
For example. i = i++. Because none of the operators involved in this expression represent sequence points, you can permute the expressions that are side-effects as you want. The C language allows you to use any of these sequences
i = i; i = i+1; or i = i+1; i=i; or tmp=i; i = i+1 ; i = tmp; or tmp=i; i = tmp; i = i+1; or anything that provides the same result as the abstract semantics of computation asks for interpretation of this computation. The Standard ISO9899 defines the C language as abstract semantics.
There may be no UB in your program, but in the question:
Does the statement int val = (++i > ++j) ? ++i : ++j; invoke undefined behavior?
The answer is yes. Either or both of the increment operations may overflow, since i and j are signed, in which case all bets are off.
Of course this doesn't happen in your full example because you've specified the values as small integers.
I was going to comment on #Doug Currie that signed integer overflow was a tidbit too far fetched, although technically correct as answer. On the contrary!
On a second thought, I think Doug's answer is not only correct, but assuming a not entirely trivial three-liner as in the example (but a program with maybe a loop or such) should be extended to a clear, definite "yes". Here's why:
The compiler sees int i = 1, j = 2;, so it knows that ++i will be equal to j and thus cannot possibly be larger than j or even ++j. Modern optimizers see such trivial things.
Unless of course, one of them overflows. But the optimizer knows that this would be UB, and therefore assumes that, and optimizes according to, it will never happen.
So the ternary operator's condition is always-false (in this easy example certainly, but even if invoked repeatedly in a loop this would be the case!), and i will only ever be incremented once, whereas j will always be incremented twice. Thus not only is j always larger than i, it even gains at every iteration (until overflow happens, but this never happens per our assumption).
Thus, the optimizer is allowed to turn this into ++i; j += 2; unconditionally, which surely isn't what one would expect.
The same applies for e.g. a loop with unknown values of i and j, such as user-supplied input. The optimizer might very well recognize that the sequence of operations only depends on the initial values of i and j. Thus, the sequence of increments followed by a conditional move can be optimized by duplicating the loop, once for each case, and switching between the two with a single if(i>j). And then, while we're at it, it might fold the loop of repeated increment-by-twos into something like (j-i)<<1 which it just adds. Or something.
Under the assumption that overflow never happens -- which is the assumption that the optimizer is allowed to make, and does make -- such a modification which may completely changes the entire sense and mode of operation of the program is perfectly fine.
Try and debug that.
Disclaimer: I don't code like this, I'm just trying to understand how the c language works!!!!
The output is 12.
This expression (a-- == 10 && a-- == 9) evaluates left-to-right, and a is still 10 at a-- == 10 but a is 9 for a-- == 9.
1) Is there a clear rule as to when post-increment evaluate? From this example it seems it evaluates prior to the && but after the ==. Is that because the && logical operator makes a-- == 10 a complete expression, so a is updated after it executes?
2) Also for c/c++, certain operators such as prefix decrement occur right to left so a == --a first decrements a to 9 and then compares 9 == 9. Is there a reason for why c/c++ is designed this way? I know for Java, it's the opposite (it's evaluates left to right).
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int a = 10;
if (a-- == 10 && a-- == 9)
printf("1");
a = 10;
if (a == --a)
printf("2");
return 0;
}
The logical && operator contains a sequence point between the evaluation of the first and second operand. Part of this is that any side effect (such as that performed by the -- operator) as part of the left side is complete before the right side is evaluated.
This is detailed in section 6.5.13p4 of the C standard regarding the logical AND operator:
Unlike the bitwise binary & operator, the && operator guarantees
left-to-right evaluation; if the second operand is evaluated,
there is a sequence point between the evaluations of the
first and second operands. If the first operand compares
equal to 0, the second operand is not evaluated.
In the case of this expression:
(a-- == 10 && a-- == 9)
The current value of a (10) is first compared for equality against 10. This is true, so the right side is then evaluated, but not before the side effect of decrementing a that was done on the left side. Then, the current value of a (now 9) is compared for equality against 9. This is also true, so the whole expression evaluates to true. Before the next statement is executed, the side effect of decrementing a that was done on the right side is done.
This expression however:
if (a == --a)
Involves reading and writing a in the same expression without a sequence point. This invokes undefined behavior.
This expression (a-- == 10 && a-- == 9) evaluates left-to-right,
Yes, mostly, but only because && is special.
and a is still 10 at a-- == 10
Yes, because a-- yields the old value.
but a is 9 for a-- == 9.
Yes, because the sequence point at && guarantees the update to a's value is complete before the RHS is evaluated.
1) Is there a clear rule as to when post-increment evaluate?
The best answer, I think, is "no". The side effects due to ++ and -- are completed at some point prior to the next sequence point, but beyond that, you can't say. For well-defined expressions, it doesn't matter when the side effects are completed. If an expression is sensitive to when the side effect is completed, that usually means the expression is undefined.
From this example it seems it evaluates prior to the && but after the ==. Is that because the && logical operator makes a-- == 10 a complete expression, so a is updated after it executes?
Basically yes.
2) Also for c/c++, certain operators such as prefix decrement occur right to left
Careful. I'm not sure what you mean, but whatever it is, I'm almost certain it's not true.
so a == --a first decrements a to 9 and then compares 9 == 9.
No, a == --a is undefined. There's no telling what it does.
Is there a reason for why c/c++ is designed this way?
Yes.
I know for Java, it's the opposite (it's evaluates left to right).
Yes, Java is different.
Here are some guidelines to help you understand the evaluation of C expressions:
Learn the rules of operator precedence and associativity. For "simple" expressions, those rules tell you virtually everything you need to know about an expression's evaluation. Given a + b * c, b is multiplied by c and then the product added to a, because of the higher precedence of * over +. Given a + b + c, a is added to b and then the sum added to c, because+ associates from left to right.
With the exception of associativity (as mentioned in point 1), try not to use the words "left to right" or "right to left" evaluation at all. C has nothing like left to right or right to left evaluation. (Obviously Java is different.)
Where it gets tricky is side effects. (When I said "'simple' expressions" in point 1, I basically meant "expressions without side effects".) Side effects include (a) function calls, (b) assignments with =, (c) assignments with +=, -=, etc., and of course (d) increments/decrements with ++ and --. (If it matters when you fetch from a variable, which is typically only the case for variables qualified as volatile, we could add (e) fetches from volatile variables to the list.) In general, you can not tell when side effects happen. Try not to care. As long as you don't care (as long as your program is insensitive to the order in which side effects matter), it doesn't matter. But if your program is sensitive, it's probably undefined. (See more under points 4 and 5 below.)
You must never ever have two side effects in the same expression which attempt to alter the same variable. (Examples: i = i++, a++ + a++.) If you do, the expression is undefined.
With one class of exceptions, you must never ever have a side effect which attempts to alter a variable which is also being used elsewhere in the same expression. (Example: a == --a.) If you do, the expression is undefined. The exception is when the value accessed is being used to compute the value to be stored, as in i = i + 1.
With "logical and" operator (a-- == 10 && a-- == 9) is well-formed expression (without undefined behavior as it is in a++ + a++).
C standard says about "logical and"/"logical or" operators:
guarantees left-to-right evaluation; there is a sequence point after
the evaluation of the first operand.
So that, all side effects of the first subexpression a-- == 10 are complete before the second subexpression a-- == 9 evaluation.
a is 9 before evaluation of second subexpression.
The underlying problem is that the postfix unary operator has both a return value (the starting value of the variable) and a side effect (incrementing the variable). While the value has to be calculated in order, it is explicit in the C++ specs that the sequencing of any side effect relative to the rest of the operators in a statement is undefined, as long as it happens before the full expression completes. This allows compilers (and optimizers) to do what they want, including evaluating them differently on different expressions in the same program.
From the C++20 code spec (C++ 2020 draft N4849 is where I got this from):
Every value computation and side effect associated with a full-expression is
sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with the
next full-expression to be evaluated.
[6.9.1 9, p.72]
If a side effect on a memory location is unsequenced
relative to either another side effect on the same memory location or
a value computation using the value of any object in the same memory location, and they are not potentially concurrent, the behavior is undefined. [6.9.1 10, p.72]
So, in case you haven't gotten it from other answers:
No, there is no defined order for a postfix operator. However, in your case (a-- == 10 && a-- == 9) has defined behavior because the && enforces that the left side must be evaluated before the right side. It will always return true, and at the end, a==8. Other operators or functions such as (a-- > a--) could get a lot of weird behavior, including a==9 at the end because both prefix operators store the original value of a(10) and decrement that value to 9 and store it back to a.
Not only is the side-effect of setting a=a-1 (in the prefix operator) unsequenced with the rest of this expression, the evaluation of the operands of == is also unsequenced. This expression could:
Evaluate a(10), then evaluate --a(9), then == (false), then set a=9.
Evaluate --a(9), then a(10), then set a=9, then evaluate == (false).
Evaluate --a(9) the set a=9, then evaluate a(9), then evaluate == (true)
Yes, it is very confusing. As a general rule (which I think you already know): Do not set a variable more than once in the same statement, or use it and set it in the same statement. You have no idea what the compiler is going to do with it, especially if this is code that will be published open source, so someone might compile it differently than you did.
Side note:
I've seen so many responses to questions about the undefined behavior of postfix operators that complain that this "undefined behavior" only ever occurs in the toy examples presented in the questions. This really annoys me, because it can and does happen. Here is a real example of how the behavior can change that I had actually happen to me in my legacy code base.
result[ctr]=source[ctr++];
result[ctr++]=(another calculated value without ctr in it);
In Visual Studio, under C++14, this evaluated so that result had every other value of source in even indexes and had the calculated values in the odd indexes. For example, for ctr=0, it would store source[0], copy the stored value to result[0], then increment ctr, then set result[1] to the calculated value, then increment ctr. (Yes, there was a reason for wanting that result.)
We updated to C++20, and this line started breaking. We ended up with a bad array, because it would store source[0], then increment ctr, then copy the stored value to result[1], then set result[1] to the calculated value, then increment ctr. It was only setting the odd indexes in result, first from source then overwriting the source value with the calculated value. All the odd indexes of result stayed zero (our original initialization value).
Ugh.
I'm just starting a beginner's guide to games programming tutorial in C. I'm a little confused with the code below.
At main gameOverTick is set to zero, then we have a case when the game is over
case GAME_OVER:
printStatus("GAME OVER!!! The evil DarkLord was defeated");
if (++gameOverTick % 100 == 0){
status = PRINT_GAME_WELCOMESCREEN; // go back to welcome screen
gameOverTick = 0; // reset gameOverTick
}
I would just like to know what role the ++ (pre-inc) operation does on gameOverTick. Does it set gameOverTick to 1 whilst checking the if, or set it to 0 somehow. I know how post-inc ++ works, but this is a new one for me.
Thanks
We've got four answers here and they are all wrong in the same way. Let me make sure this is very clear in your mind: people who tell you that precedence of operators determines the order in which side effects occur as a result of computation of subexpressions are simply wrong. In C, the order in which subexpressions are computed is not controlled by precedence; it is largely undefined. (In C# and Java is is defined not as precedence order but as left-to-right.)
In the specific case here, the value of the ++ operation must be computed before the % happens, but the assignment associated with the ++ operation can happen at any time. In your particular case it doesn't matter when the assignment happens, but it is easy to construct cases where it does matter.
This increases gameOverTick by one before the modulo is calculated and the comparison is done. (A good rule of thumb in C is that unitary operations have tighter binding than binary, and calculations over logic operations.) It guess the purpose of this is to wait 100 loops until it goes hack to the welcome screen, as gameOverTick is only reset if it have gone up to 100.
Most expressions in C have a value; most expressions have a side effect.
Consider the two expressions below
/* a */ i++
/* b */ ++i
The side effect of both expressions is to increase the value of i (that change is only usable after the next sequence point). The value of the first expression is the value i had on the previous sequence point; the value of the second expression is one more than what i had at the previous sequence point.
The code you have written inside parenthesis of if is called an expression, the expression evaluation always follow operator precedence rule, considering the given expression
1.++ operator has highest precedence so '++gameOverTick' is evaluated first as '(gameOverTick = gameOverTick+1)'
2.The next next precedence is for '%' operator so '(gameOverTick+1)%100' is calculated
3.Finally the least precedence operator is '==' hence the obtained result on left side of '==' operator is compared for equality with the right side value.
Example:
-Consider gameOverTick value as 99
-99 is incremented first i.e, 99+1 = 100
-Than the % operation is performed i.e, 100%100 = 0
-Now equality is compared` i.e, 0 == 0 which gives 1
-The evaluation of expression gives 1 hence it is equal to if(1), which indicates a true.
For more on operator precedence you can refer this link
http://www.difranco.net/compsci/C_Operator_Precedence_Table.htm
I was writing a console application that would try to "guess" a number by trial and error, it worked fine and all but it left me wondering about a certain part that I wrote absentmindedly,
The code is:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
int x,i,a,cc;
for(;;){
scanf("%d",&x);
a=50;
i=100/a;
for(cc=0;;cc++)
{
if(x<a)
{
printf("%d was too big\n",a);
a=a-((100/(i<<=1))?:1);
}
else if (x>a)
{
printf("%d was too small\n",a);
a=a+((100/(i<<=1))?:1);
}
else
{
printf("%d was the right number\n-----------------%d---------------------\n",a,cc);
break;
}
}
}
return 0;
}
More specifically the part that confused me is
a=a+((100/(i<<=1))?:1);
//Code, code
a=a-((100/(i<<=1))?:1);
I used ((100/(i<<=1))?:1) to make sure that if 100/(i<<=1) returned 0 (or false) the whole expression would evaluate to 1 ((100/(i<<=1))?:***1***), and I left the part of the conditional that would work if it was true empty ((100/(i<<=1))? _this space_ :1), it seems to work correctly but is there any risk in leaving that part of the conditional empty?
This is a GNU C extension (see ?: wikipedia entry), so for portability you should explicitly state the second operand.
In the 'true' case, it is returning the result of the conditional.
The following statements are almost equivalent:
a = x ?: y;
a = x ? x : y;
The only difference is in the first statement, x is always evaluated once, whereas in the second, x will be evaluated twice if it is true. So the only difference is when evaluating x has side effects.
Either way, I'd consider this a subtle use of the syntax... and if you have any empathy for those maintaining your code, you should explicitly state the operand. :)
On the other hand, it's a nice little trick for a common use case.
This is a GCC extension to the C language. When nothing appears between ?:, then the value of the comparison is used in the true case.
The middle operand in a conditional expression may be omitted. Then if the first operand is nonzero, its value is the value of the conditional expression.
Therefore, the expression
x ? : y
has the value of x if that is nonzero; otherwise, the value of y.
This example is perfectly equivalent to
x ? x : y
In this simple case, the ability to omit the middle operand is not especially useful. When it becomes useful is when the first operand does, or may (if it is a macro argument), contain a side effect. Then repeating the operand in the middle would perform the side effect twice. Omitting the middle operand uses the value already computed without the undesirable effects of recomputing it.