Consider the following piece of C code:
#include <stdint.h>
uint32_t inc(uint16_t x) {
return x+1;
}
When compiled with gcc-4.4.3 with flags -std=c99 -march=core2 -msse4.1 -O2 -pipe -Wall on a pure x86_64 system, it produces
movzwl %di,%eax
inc %eax
retq
Now, unsigned overflow is predicted in C. I do not know much about x86_64 assembly, but as far as I can see the 16bit argument register is being moved to a 32bit register, which is incremented and returned. My question is, what if x == UINT16_MAX. An overflow would occur and the standard dictates x+1==0, right? However, given %eax is a 32bit register, it now contains UINT16_MAX+1, which is not correct.
This lets me connect one question here: is there a portable way to disable unsigned overflow in C so that the compiler can assume the upper bits of a small variable stored in a large register will always be 0 (so it needs not clear them)? If not (or if the solution is syntactically nasty), is there a way to do it at least in GCC?
Thank you very much for your time.
No, C types are subject to default promotions. Assuming uint16_t has lower conversion rank than int, it will be promoted to int and the addition will be carried out as an int, then converted to uint32_t when returned.
As for your related question at the end, I don't quite follow what you want.
Use a coding style that does not use compiler intermediaries for calculations, note that (1) is going to have the data type int.
uint32_t inc(uint16_t x) {
uint16_t y = x + 1;
return y;
}
A peculiarity of the way the standard describes integer overflow is that it allows compilers to assume that an overflow cannot occur. In the case you show there, the compiler is not expected to preserve the behavior of an overflow, since after all, the range of possible values that x+1 may take (assuming that overflow doesn't exist) fit in the return type.
For your second question, in C there is no such thing as overflow for unsigned types, the applicable term is wrapping. By definition unsigned types are computed modulo 2^width. Whenever you cast a wider unsigned type to one that is narrower the upper bits will simply be thrown away. All C compilers should implement it like this, there is nothing you have to worry about.
In essence unsigned types are quite simple, the nasty things only come for signed types.
Related
Does the return type matter when returning from a function?
This is kind of a 2-part question.
I believe an 8-bit operation would be the same as a 32-bit operation.
I believe an 8-bit value is operated on in a 32-bit register, so it will be promoted to a 32-bit value. Then it would be casted back down to an 8-bit value.
unsigned char SomeFunc() <- Quickest and less memory.
unsigned short SomeFunc()
unsigned long SomeFunc()
"All operations should be performed on the smallest variable wherever possible, this saves both time and space" True or False?
On a 32 bit operating system, I don't believe it would matter, since the return register is 32 bits anyways, whether it be a variable or an address.
So it would neither save time, nor space.
I do understand that there might be a need to return a char/byte, if that's all your dealing with, but you could still return a long and cast it.
I think your still casting either way whether before or after you leave the function. I almost think it is easier and faster to deal with 32 bit values than 16 or 8 bit values.
Second part.
In the following function, I don't believe it would make it any quicker or save any more space if I were to return a unsigned short instead.
unsigned long SomeFunc(unsigned char a, unsigned char b);
{
unsigned long c = a + b;
return c;
}
or
unsigned long SomeFunc(unsigned char a);
{
//This will be promoted to a 32-bit value anyways.
return a & 0x1;
}
The following function would somehow be quicker and take up less memory?
unsigned char SomeFunc(unsigned char a);
{
//This will be promoted to a 32-bit value anyways.
return a & 0x1;
}
tl;dr: Trust your optimizer. Don't fight the type system.
Yes, you should use the smallest type.
Depending on your compiler they may compile differently and your compiler might have good reason to do that. If you lie to your compiler about the types you're messing with its ability to optimize your code.
And because you don't know how the return value will be used.
Not all memory is a single variable. Consider arrays and structs. They are allocated in large blocks beyond the 32 or 64 bit native sizes. If you return larger type than necessary you're forcing that an array or struct storing it to use more memory. For example, if you return an int where you should be returning a char and I have to store those values in array that array will be 4 to 8 times larger.
I do understand that there might be a need to return a char/byte, if that's all your dealing with, but you could still return a long and cast it. I think your still casting either way whether before or after you leave the function. I almost think it is easier and faster to deal with 32 bit values than 16 or 8 bit values.
The return value tells people reading the code what type to use to store the return value. If you habitually use larger types than necessary and just need to know which ones you can cast to smaller types, that's hidden information only you know. And if it's in your head you're going to forget.
Gratuitous casting defeats the safety of the type system. Type checks let you know if you're putting data of the wrong type or size into the wrong place. Casting tells the compiler "I know this looks wrong, but trust me I know what I'm doing". This should be done only when necessary. If you're gratuitously casting you lose this help from the compiler. If you make a mistake the compiler cannot help you.
Finally, it will befuddle anyone reading your code. They'll scratch their heads and wonder why you're always shoving longs into shorts and ints into chars. They'll never know which are ok and which are mistakes.
As to unsigned long vs unsigned char, compiling your two functions with clang -O3 -S and diffing the assembly reveals a slight difference:
- movq %rdi, %rax
+ movl %edi, %eax
The unsigned char implementation will use a 32-bit register while unsigned long will use a 64-bit register. Does this matter? Dunno, probably not. Definitely not enough to defeat the type system.
There is some debate between my colleague and I about the U suffix after hexadecimally represented literals. Note, this is not a question about the meaning of this suffix or about what it does. I have found several of those topics here, but I have not found an answer to my question.
Some background information:
We're trying to come to a set of rules that we both agree on, to use that as our style from that point on. We have a copy of the 2004 Misra C rules and decided to use that as a starting point. We're not interested in being fully Misra C compliant; we're cherry picking the rules that we think will most increase efficiency and robustness.
Rule 10.6 from the aforementioned guidelines states:
A “U” suffix shall be applied to all constants of unsigned type.
I personally think this is a good rule. It takes little effort, looks better than explicit casts and more explicitly shows the intention of a constant. To me it makes sense to use it for all unsigned contants, not just numerics, since enforcing a rule doesn't happen by allowing exceptions, especially for a commonly used representation of constants.
My colleague, however, feels that the hexadecimal representation doesn't need the suffix. Mostly because we almost exclusively use it to set micro-controller registers, and signedness doesn't matter when setting registers to hex constants.
My Question
My question is not one about who is right or wrong. It is about finding out whether there are cases where the absence or presence of the suffix changes the outcome of an operation. Are there any such cases, or is it a matter of consistency?
Edit: for clarification; Specifically about setting micro-controller registers by assigning hexadecimal values to them. Would there be a case where the suffix could make a difference there? I feel like it wouldn't. As an example, the Freescale Processor Expert generates all register assignments as unsigned.
Appending a U suffix to all hexadecimal constants makes them unsigned as you already mentioned. This may have undesirable side-effects when these constants are used in operations along with signed values, especially comparisons.
Here is a pathological example:
#define MY_INT_MAX 0x7FFFFFFFU // blindly applying the rule
if (-1 < MY_INT_MAX) {
printf("OK\n");
} else {
printf("OOPS!\n");
}
The C rules for signed/unsigned conversions are precisely specified, but somewhat counter-intuitive so the above code will indeed print OOPS.
The MISRA-C rule is precise as it states A “U” suffix shall be applied to all constants of unsigned type. The word unsigned has far reaching consequences and indeed most constants should not really be considered unsigned.
Furthermore, the C Standard makes a subtile difference between decimal and hexadecimal constants:
A hexadecimal constant is considered unsigned if its value can be represented by the unsigned integer type and not the signed integer type of the same size for types int and larger.
This means that on 32-bit 2's complement systems, 2147483648 is a long or a long long whereas 0x80000000 is an unsigned int. Appending a U suffix may make this more explicit in this case but the real precaution to avoid potential problems is to mandate the compiler to reject signed/unsigned comparisons altogether: gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror or clang -Weverything -Werror are life savers.
Here is how bad it can get:
if (-1 < 0x8000) {
printf("OK\n");
} else {
printf("OOPS!\n");
}
The above code should print OK on 32-bit systems and OOPS on 16-bit systems. To make things even worse, it is still quite common to see embedded projects use obsolete compilers which do not even implement the Standard semantics for this issue.
For your specific question, the defined values for micro-processor registers used specifically to set them via assignment (assuming these registers are memory-mapped), need not have the U suffix at all. The register lvalue should have an unsigned type and the hex value will be signed or unsigned depending on its value, but the operation will proceed the same. The opcode for setting a signed number or an unsigned number is the same on your target architecture and on any architectures I have ever seen.
With all integer-constants
Appending u/U insures the integer-constant will be some unsigned type.
Without a u/U
For a decimal-constant, the integer-constant will be some signed type.
For a hexadecimal/octal-constant, the integer-constant will be signed or unsigned type, depending of value and integer type ranges.
Note: All integer-constants have positive values.
// +-------- unary operator
// |+-+----- integer-constant
int x = -123;
absence or presence of the suffix changes the outcome of an operation?
When is this important?
With various expressions, the sign-ness and width of the math needs to be controlled and preferable not surprising.
// Examples: assume 32-bit `unsigned`, `long`, 64-bit `long long`
// Bad signed int overflow (UB)
unsigned a = 4000 * 1000 * 1000;
// OK
unsigned b = 4000u * 1000 * 1000;
// undefined behavior
unsigned c = 1 << 31
// OK
unsigned d = 1u << 31
printf("Size %zu\n", sizeof(0xFFFFFFFF)); // 8 type is `long long`
printf("Size %zu\n", sizeof(0xFFFFFFFFu)); // 4 type is `unsigned`
// 2 ** 63
long long e = -9223372036854775808; // C99: bad "9223372036854775808" not representable
long long f = -9223372036854775807 - 1; // ok
long long g = -9223372036854775808u; // implementation defined behavior **
some_unsigned_type h_max = -1; OK, max value for the target type.
some_unsigned_type i_max = -1u; OK, but not max value for wide unsigned types
// when negating a negative `int`
unsigned j = 0 - INT_MIN; // typically int overflow or UB
unsigned k = 0u - INT_MIN; // Never UB
** or an implementation-defined signal is raised.
For the specific question, which was loading register(s), then the U makes it an unsigned value, but whether the compiler treats the n-bit word pattern as a signed or unsigned value it will move the same bit pattern, assuming there isn't any size extension that would propagate an MSB. The difference that might matter is if the register load operation will set any processor condition flags based on a signed or unsigned loading. As an overall guide if the processor supports storing a constant to configuration register or a memory address then loading a peripheral register is unlikely to set the processor's NEG condition flag. Loading a general purpose register connected to an ALU, one that can be the target of an arithmetic operation like add increment or decrement, might set a negative flag on loading so that e.g. a trailing "branch (if) negative" opcode would execute the branch. You would want to check the processor's references to be sure. Small instruction set processors tend to have only a load register instruction, while larger instruction sets are more likely to have a load unsigned variant of the load instruction that doesn't set the NEG bit in the processor's flags, but again, check the processor's references. if you don't have access to the processor's errata (the boo-boo list) and need a specific flag state. All of this only tends to come up when an optimizing compiler re-aranges code with an inline assembly instruction and other uncommon situations. Examine the generate assembly code, turn off some or all compiler optimizations for the module when needed, etc.
I have always, for as long as I can remember and ubiquitously, done this:
for (unsigned int i = 0U; i < 10U; ++i)
{
// ...
}
In other words, I use the U specifier on unsigned integers. Now having just looked at this for far too long, I'm wondering why I do this. Apart from signifying intent, I can't think of a reason why it's useful in trivial code like this?
Is there a valid programming reason why I should continue with this convention, or is it redundant?
First, I'll state what is probably obvious to you, but your question leaves room for it, so I'm making sure we're all on the same page.
There are obvious differences between unsigned ints and regular ints: The difference in their range (-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 for an int32 and 0 to 4,294,967,295 for a uint32). There's a difference in what bits are put at the most significant bit when you use the right bitshift >> operator.
The suffix is important when you need to tell the compiler to treat the constant value as a uint instead of a regular int. This may be important if the constant is outside the range of a regular int but within the range of a uint. The compiler might throw a warning or error in that case if you don't use the U suffix.
Other than that, Daniel Daranas mentioned in comments the only thing that happens: if you don't use the U suffix, you'll be implicitly converting the constant from a regular int to a uint. That's a tiny bit extra effort for the compiler, but there's no run-time difference.
Should you care? Here's my answer, (in bold, for those who only want a quick answer): There's really no good reason to declare a constant as 10U or 0U. Most of the time, you're within the common range of uint and int, so the value of that constant looks exactly the same whether its a uint or an int. The compiler will immediately take your const int expression and convert it to a const uint.
That said, here's the only argument I can give you for the other side: semantics. It's nice to make code semantically coherent. And in that case, if your variable is a uint, it doesn't make sense to set that value to a constant int. If you have a uint variable, it's clearly for a reason, and it should only work with uint values.
That's a pretty weak argument, though, particularly because as a reader, we accept that uint constants usually look like int constants. I like consistency, but there's nothing gained by using the 'U'.
I see this often when using defines to avoid signed/unsigned mismatch warnings. I build a code base for several processors using different tool chains and some of them are very strict.
For instance, removing the ‘u’ in the MAX_PRINT_WIDTH define below:
#define MAX_PRINT_WIDTH (384u)
#define IMAGE_HEIGHT (480u) // 240 * 2
#define IMAGE_WIDTH (320u) // 160 * 2 double density
Gave the following warning:
"..\Application\Devices\MartelPrinter\mtl_print_screen.c", line 106: cc1123: {D} warning:
comparison of unsigned type with signed type
for ( x = 1; (x < IMAGE_WIDTH) && (index <= MAX_PRINT_WIDTH); x++ )
You will probably also see ‘f’ for float vs. double.
I extracted this sentence from a comment, because it's a widely believed incorrect statement, and also because it gives some insight into why explicitly marking unsigned constants as such is a good habit.
...it seems like it would only be useful to keep it when I think overflow might be an issue? But then again, haven't I gone some ways to mitigating for that by specifying unsigned in the first place...
Now, let's consider some code:
int something = get_the_value();
// Compute how many 8s are necessary to reach something
unsigned count = (something + 7) / 8;
So, does the unsigned mitigate potential overflow? Not at all.
Let's suppose something turns out to be INT_MAX (or close to that value). Assuming a 32-bit machine, we might expect count to be 229, or 268,435,456. But it's not.
Telling the compiler that the result of the computation should be unsigned has no effect whatsoever on the typing of the computation. Since something is an int, and 7 is an int, something + 7 will be computed as an int, and will overflow. Then the overflowed value will be divided by 8 (also using signed arithmetic), and whatever that works out to be will be converted to an unsigned and assigned to count.
With GCC, arithmetic is actually performed in 2s complement so the overflow will be a very large negative number; after the division it will be a not-so-large negative number, and that ends up being a largish unsigned number, much larger than the one we were expecting.
Suppose we had specified 7U instead (and maybe 8U as well, to be consistent). Now it works.. It works because now something + 7U is computed with unsigned arithmetic, which doesn't overflow (or even wrap around.)
Of course, this bug (and thousands like it) might go unnoticed for quite a lot of time, blowing up (perhaps literally) at the worst possible moment...
(Obviously, making something unsigned would have mitigated the problem. Here, that's pretty obvious. But the definition might be quite a long way from the use.)
One reason you should do this for trivial code1 is that the suffix forces a type on the literal, and the type may be very important to produce the correct result.
Consider this bit of (somewhat silly) code:
#define magic_number(x) _Generic((x), \
unsigned int : magic_number_unsigned, \
int : magic_number_signed \
)(x)
unsigned magic_number_unsigned(unsigned) {
// ...
}
unsigned magic_number_signed(int) {
// ...
}
int main(void) {
unsigned magic = magic_number(10u);
}
It's not hard to imagine those function actually doing something meaningful based on the type of their argument. Had I omitted the suffix, the generic selection would have produced a wrong result for a very trivial call.
1 But perhaps not the particular code in your post.
In this case, it's completely useless.
In other cases, a suffix might be useful. For instance:
#include <stdio.h>
int
main()
{
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(123));
printf("%zu\n", sizeof(123LL));
return 0;
}
On my system, it will print 4 then 8.
But back to your code, yes it makes your code more explicit, nothing more.
I always use unsigned int for values that should never be negative. But today I
noticed this situation in my code:
void CreateRequestHeader( unsigned bitsAvailable, unsigned mandatoryDataSize,
unsigned optionalDataSize )
{
If ( bitsAvailable – mandatoryDataSize >= optionalDataSize ) {
// Optional data fits, so add it to the header.
}
// BUG! The above includes the optional part even if
// mandatoryDataSize > bitsAvailable.
}
Should I start using int instead of unsigned int for numbers, even if they
can't be negative?
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that interchanging signed/unsigned numbers can lead to security bugs. This is a big issue, since many of the functions in the standard C-library take/return unsigned numbers (fread, memcpy, malloc etc. all take size_t parameters)
For instance, take the following innocuous example (from real code):
//Copy a user-defined structure into a buffer and process it
char* processNext(char* data, short length)
{
char buffer[512];
if (length <= 512) {
memcpy(buffer, data, length);
process(buffer);
return data + length;
} else {
return -1;
}
}
Looks harmless, right? The problem is that length is signed, but is converted to unsigned when passed to memcpy. Thus setting length to SHRT_MIN will validate the <= 512 test, but cause memcpy to copy more than 512 bytes to the buffer - this allows an attacker to overwrite the function return address on the stack and (after a bit of work) take over your computer!
You may naively be saying, "It's so obvious that length needs to be size_t or checked to be >= 0, I could never make that mistake". Except, I guarantee that if you've ever written anything non-trivial, you have. So have the authors of Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Firefox, OpenSSL, Safari, MS Paint, Internet Explorer, Google Picasa, Opera, Flash, Open Office, Subversion, Apache, Python, PHP, Pidgin, Gimp, ... on and on and on ... - and these are all bright people whose job is knowing security.
In short, always use size_t for sizes.
Man, programming is hard.
Should I always ...
The answer to "Should I always ..." is almost certainly 'no', there are a lot of factors that dictate whether you should use a datatype- consistency is important.
But, this is a highly subjective question, it's really easy to mess up unsigneds:
for (unsigned int i = 10; i >= 0; i--);
results in an infinite loop.
This is why some style guides including Google's C++ Style Guide discourage unsigned data types.
In my personal opinion, I haven't run into many bugs caused by these problems with unsigned data types — I'd say use assertions to check your code and use them judiciously (and less when you're performing arithmetic).
Some cases where you should use unsigned integer types are:
You need to treat a datum as a pure binary representation.
You need the semantics of modulo arithmetic you get with unsigned numbers.
You have to interface with code that uses unsigned types (e.g. standard library routines that accept/return size_t values.
But for general arithmetic, the thing is, when you say that something "can't be negative," that does not necessarily mean you should use an unsigned type. Because you can put a negative value in an unsigned, it's just that it will become a really large value when you go to get it out. So, if you mean that negative values are forbidden, such as for a basic square root function, then you are stating a precondition of the function, and you should assert. And you can't assert that what cannot be, is; you need a way to hold out-of-band values so you can test for them (this is the same sort of logic behind getchar() returning an int and not char.)
Additionally, the choice of signed-vs.-unsigned can have practical repercussions on performance, as well. Take a look at the (contrived) code below:
#include <stdbool.h>
bool foo_i(int a) {
return (a + 69) > a;
}
bool foo_u(unsigned int a)
{
return (a + 69u) > a;
}
Both foo's are the same except for the type of their parameter. But, when compiled with c99 -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -S, you get:
.file "try.c"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl foo_i
.type foo_i, #function
foo_i:
movl $1, %eax
ret
.size foo_i, .-foo_i
.p2align 4,,15
.globl foo_u
.type foo_u, #function
foo_u:
movl 4(%esp), %eax
leal 69(%eax), %edx
cmpl %eax, %edx
seta %al
ret
.size foo_u, .-foo_u
.ident "GCC: (Debian 4.4.4-7) 4.4.4"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",#progbits
You can see that foo_i() is more efficient than foo_u(). This is because unsigned arithmetic overflow is defined by the standard to "wrap around," so (a + 69u) may very well be smaller than a if a is very large, and thus there must be code for this case. On the other hand, signed arithmetic overflow is undefined, so GCC will go ahead and assume signed arithmetic doesn't overflow, and so (a + 69) can't ever be less than a. Choosing unsigned types indiscriminately can therefore unnecessarily impact performance.
The answer is Yes. The "unsigned" int type of C and C++ is not an "always positive integer", no matter what the name of the type looks like. The behavior of C/C++ unsigned ints has no sense if you try to read the type as "non-negative"... for example:
The difference of two unsigned is an unsigned number (makes no sense if you read it as "The difference between two non-negative numbers is non-negative")
The addition of an int and an unsigned int is unsigned
There is an implicit conversion from int to unsigned int (if you read unsigned as "non-negative" it's the opposite conversion that would make sense)
If you declare a function accepting an unsigned parameter when someone passes a negative int you simply get that implicitly converted to a huge positive value; in other words using an unsigned parameter type doesn't help you finding errors neither at compile time nor at runtime.
Indeed unsigned numbers are very useful for certain cases because they are elements of the ring "integers-modulo-N" with N being a power of two. Unsigned ints are useful when you want to use that modulo-n arithmetic, or as bitmasks; they are NOT useful as quantities.
Unfortunately in C and C++ unsigned were also used to represent non-negative quantities to be able to use all 16 bits when the integers where that small... at that time being able to use 32k or 64k was considered a big difference. I'd classify it basically as an historical accident... you shouldn't try to read a logic in it because there was no logic.
By the way in my opinion that was a mistake... if 32k are not enough then quite soon 64k won't be enough either; abusing the modulo integer just because of one extra bit in my opinion was a cost too high to pay. Of course it would have been reasonable to do if a proper non-negative type was present or defined... but the unsigned semantic is just wrong for using it as non-negative.
Sometimes you may find who says that unsigned is good because it "documents" that you only want non-negative values... however that documentation is of any value only for people that don't actually know how unsigned works for C or C++. For me seeing an unsigned type used for non-negative values simply means that who wrote the code didn't understand the language on that part.
If you really understand and want the "wrapping" behavior of unsigned ints then they're the right choice (for example I almost always use "unsigned char" when I'm handling bytes); if you're not going to use the wrapping behavior (and that behavior is just going to be a problem for you like in the case of the difference you shown) then this is a clear indicator that the unsigned type is a poor choice and you should stick with plain ints.
Does this means that C++ std::vector<>::size() return type is a bad choice ? Yes... it's a mistake. But if you say so be prepared to be called bad names by who doesn't understand that the "unsigned" name is just a name... what it counts is the behavior and that is a "modulo-n" behavior (and no one would consider a "modulo-n" type for the size of a container a sensible choice).
Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, warns about using unsigned types in his book The C++ programming language:
The unsigned integer types are ideal
for uses that treat storage as a bit
array. Using an unsigned instead of an
int to gain one more bit to represent
positive integers is almost never a
good idea. Attempts to ensure that
some values are positive by declaring
variables unsigned will typically be
defeated by the implicit conversion
rules.
I seem to be in disagreement with most people here, but I find unsigned types quite useful, but not in their raw historic form.
If you consequently stick to the semantic that a type represents for you, then there should be no problem: use size_t (unsigned) for array indices, data offsets etc. off_t (signed) for file offsets. Use ptrdiff_t (signed) for differences of pointers. Use uint8_t for small unsigned integers and int8_t for signed ones. And you avoid at least 80% of portability problems.
And don't use int, long, unsigned, char if you mustn't. They belong in the history books. (Sometimes you must, error returns, bit fields, e.g)
And to come back to your example:
bitsAvailable – mandatoryDataSize >= optionalDataSize
can be easily rewritten as
bitsAvailable >= optionalDataSize + mandatoryDataSize
which doesn't avoid the problem of a potential overflow (assert is your friend) but gets you a bit nearer to the idea of what you want to test, I think.
if (bitsAvailable >= optionalDataSize + mandatoryDataSize) {
// Optional data fits, so add it to the header.
}
Bug-free, so long as mandatoryDataSize + optionalDataSize can't overflow the unsigned integer type -- the naming of these variables leads me to believe this is likely to be the case.
You can't fully avoid unsigned types in portable code, because many typedefs in the standard library are unsigned (most notably size_t), and many functions return those (e.g. std::vector<>::size()).
That said, I generally prefer to stick to signed types wherever possible for the reasons you've outlined. It's not just the case you bring up - in case of mixed signed/unsigned arithmetic, the signed argument is quietly promoted to unsigned.
From the comments on one of Eric Lipperts Blog Posts (See here):
Jeffrey L. Whitledge
I once developed a system in which
negative values made no sense as a
parameter, so rather than validating
that the parameter values were
non-negative, I thought it would be a
great idea to just use uint instead. I
quickly discovered that whenever I
used those values for anything (like
calling BCL methods), they had be
converted to signed integers. This
meant that I had to validate that the
values didn't exceed the signed
integer range on the top end, so I
gained nothing. Also, every time the
code was called, the ints that were
being used (often received from BCL
functions) had to be converted to
uints. It didn't take long before I
changed all those uints back to ints
and took all that unnecessary casting
out. I still have to validate that the
numbers are not negative, but the code
is much cleaner!
Eric Lippert
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You almost never need the range of a
uint, and they are not CLS-compliant.
The standard way to represent a small
integer is with "int", even if there
are values in there that are out of
range. A good rule of thumb: only use
"uint" for situations where you are
interoperating with unmanaged code
that expects uints, or where the
integer in question is clearly used as
a set of bits, not a number. Always
try to avoid it in public interfaces.
Eric
The situation where (bitsAvailable – mandatoryDataSize) produces an 'unexpected' result when the types are unsigned and bitsAvailable < mandatoryDataSize is a reason that sometimes signed types are used even when the data is expected to never be negative.
I think there's no hard and fast rule - I typically 'default' to using unsigned types for data that has no reason to be negative, but then you have to take to ensure that arithmetic wrapping doesn't expose bugs.
Then again, if you use signed types, you still have to sometimes consider overflow:
MAX_INT + 1
The key is that you have to take care when performing arithmetic for these kinds of bugs.
No you should use the type that is right for your application. There is no golden rule. Sometimes on small microcontrollers it is for example more speedy and memory efficient to use say 8 or 16 bit variables wherever possible as that is often the native datapath size, but that is a very special case. I also recommend using stdint.h wherever possible. If you are using visual studio you can find BSD licensed versions.
If there is a possibility of overflow, then assign the values to the next highest data type during the calculation, ie:
void CreateRequestHeader( unsigned int bitsAvailable, unsigned int mandatoryDataSize, unsigned int optionalDataSize )
{
signed __int64 available = bitsAvailable;
signed __int64 mandatory = mandatoryDataSize;
signed __int64 optional = optionalDataSize;
if ( (mandatory + optional) <= available ) {
// Optional data fits, so add it to the header.
}
}
Otherwise, just check the values individually instead of calculating:
void CreateRequestHeader( unsigned int bitsAvailable, unsigned int mandatoryDataSize, unsigned int optionalDataSize )
{
if ( bitsAvailable < mandatoryDataSize ) {
return;
}
bitsAvailable -= mandatoryDataSize;
if ( bitsAvailable < optionalDataSize ) {
return;
}
bitsAvailable -= optionalDataSize;
// Optional data fits, so add it to the header.
}
You'll need to look at the results of the operations you perform on the variables to check if you can get over/underflows - in your case, the result being potentially negative. In that case you are better off using the signed equivalents.
I don't know if its possible in c, but in this case I would just cast the X-Y thing to an int.
If your numbers should never be less than zero, but have a chance to be < 0, by all means use signed integers and sprinkle assertions or other runtime checks around. If you're actually working with 32-bit (or 64, or 16, depending on your target architecture) values where the most significant bit means something other than "-", you should only use unsigned variables to hold them. It's easier to detect integer overflows where a number that should always be positive is very negative than when it's zero, so if you don't need that bit, go with the signed ones.
Suppose you need to count from 1 to 50000. You can do that with a two-byte unsigned integer, but not with a two-byte signed integer (if space matters that much).
I am having following doubt regarding "int" flavors (unsigned int, long int, long long int).
When we do some operations(* , /, + , -) between int and its flavors (lets say long int)
in 32bit system and 64bit system is the implicit typecast happen for "int"
for example :-
int x ;
long long int y = 2000;
x = y ; (Higher is assigned to lower one data truncation may happen)
I am expecting compiler to give warning for this But I am not getting any such warning.
Is this due to implicit typecast happen for "x" here.
I am using gcc with -Wall option. Is the behavior will change for 32bit and 64bit.
Thanks
Arpit
-Wall does not activate all possible warnings. -Wextra enables other warnings. Anyway, what you do is a perfectly "legal" operation and since the compiler can't always know at compile-time the value of the datum that could be "truncated", it is ok it does not warn: programmer should be already aware of the fact that a "large" integer could not fit into a "small" integer, so it is up to the programmer usually. If you think your program is written in not-awareness of this, add -Wconversion.
Casting without an explicit type cast operator is perfectly legal in C, but may have undefined behavior. In your case, int x; is signed, so if you try to store a value in it that's outside the range of int, your program has undefined behavior. On the other hand, if x were declared as unsigned x; the behavior is well-defined; cast is via reduction modulo UINT_MAX+1.
As for arithmetic, when you perform arithmetic between integers of different types, the 'smaller' type is promoted to the 'larger' type prior to the arithmetic. The compiler is free to optimize out this promotion of course if it does not affect the results, which leads to idioms like casting a 32bit integer to 64bit before multiplying to get a full 64bit result. Promotion gets a bit confusing and can have unexpected results when signed and unsigned values are mixed. You should look it up if you care to know since it's hard to explain informally.
If you are worried, you can include <stdint.h> and use types with defined lengths, such as uint16_t for a 16-bit unsigned integer.
Your code is perfectly valid (as already said by others). If you want to program in a portable way in most cases you should not use the bare C types int, long or unsigned int but types that tell a bit better what you are planing to do with it.
E.g for indices of arrays use always size_t. Regardless on whether or not you are on a 32 or 64 bit system this will be the right type. Or if you want to take the integer of maximal width on the platform you happen to land on use intmax_t or uintmax_t.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2003-06/msg00086.html -- the code is perfectly valid C/C++.
You might want to look at static analysis tools (sparse, llvm, etc.) to check for this type of truncation.