Why do I get two different results? Unsigned long is big enough to handle such number, and it can't be an overflow of some kind, right?
I am deliberately trying to make it show in decimal form, but it just doesn't work.
What could be the reason?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void Print(unsigned long num)
{
cout<<dec<<num<<endl;
}
int main()
{
Print(9110865112);
cout<<dec<<9110865112;
return 0;
}
Edit
It outputs:
520930520
9110865112
unsigned long is not always sufficiently large. With 32 bits it can occupy integers from 0 up to and including 232-1, which is about four billions. 9'110'865'112 is nine billions and would thus not fit into unsigned long.
Try outputting sizeof unsigned long and see what you get.
Also, consider your output: 9110865112 mod 232 is 520930520, which basically proves that unsigned long is 32 bit large on your machine.
The problem is that the numeric literal that you specify is too large to fit in an unsigned long.
When you use the literal directly, the compiler treats it as long long, and chooses the proper overload for operator <<.
To fix this problem, use unsigned long long in the signature of the Print function:
void Print(unsigned long long num)
{
cout<<dec<<num<<endl;
}
Demo.
Because 9,110,865,112 is greater than 32 bits, the method is only accepting 32 of the bits even though you're trying to pass it more.
To fix this, you should use an unsigned long long data type for you num parameter. When you print it directly written as a constant, the code prints out find because the compiler says that constant is an unsigned long long, but when you pass it as an unsigned long, the compiler says that constant should be an unsigned long. Because it's not an unsigned long, it drops some of the bits. (I'm suprised your compiler didn't print out a warning.)
As a reference, an unsigned long can hold values between 0 and 4,294,967,295 (inclusive). Any value great than this should be assigned a larger data type. An unsigned long long can hold values between 0 and 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 (inclusive).
It is worth noting that frequently the data types uint32_t and uint64_t are used in place of unsigned long and unsigned long long respectively. The u denotes that the number is unsigned (if the u is left out, the number is assumed to be signed). The number (64 and 32 in this case) states how many bytes the number should have. And _t at the end just indicates that this is a data type. So (u)int#_t is a common way to write numeric data types; # can be 8, 16, 32, or 64 in standard C++ depending on the number of bits you need.
To summarize: You're throwing a number that's too large at the function. You need to change your function's parameters to support this number:
void Print(uint64_t num){
cout << dec << num << endl;
}
Related
So I think I'm a bit confused. I'm searching information about the limits of the differents types of integers. I've seen that the limit for unsigned long int is 4294967295 but when I do:
cout << numeric_limits<unsigned long int>::max() << endl;
I'm getting:
18446744073709551615
And if I'm not wrong this number is the limit of unsigned long long, isn'it? So what is happening?
Thank you
I've seen that the limit for unsigned long int is 4294967295
Whoever told you that was wrong.
The limit for unsigned long int will usually be that on systems for which the type is 32-bit.
But yours is evidently 64-bit, so you have a different limit.
this number is the limit of unsigned long long, isn'it?
Again, you're making assumptions about type width.
The width of types varies across compilers/platforms.
If you want to use types with a fixed size, then those do exist.
The standard only defines lower bounds for the limits of integers. For example, the lower bound for the maximum that an unsigned long can represent is 4294967295.
std::numeric_limits<unsigned long>::max() gives the implementation-defined maximum value an unsigned long can represent (i.e. what the current implementation aka compiler/linker/etc actually supports).
This means it is required that
std::numeric_limits<unsigned long>::max() gives a value that is 4294967295 or more. There is nothing preventing it giving a larger result. However, an implementation that gives a smaller result is non-compliant with the standard.
Note that, when moving between compilers, the only guarantee is "4294967295 or more". If one implementation gives a larger value, there is no guarantee that another implementation will.
For the most part, the standard actually says nothing whatsoever about the number of actual bits used to represent the basic integral types, like unsigned long.
The value 18446744073709551615 is consistent with a 64-bit unsigned long, in practice.
Similar stories, albeit with different values, for other integral types (int, char, short, long, etc).
There's no real need for a solution to this, I just want to know why.
Let's take two numbers:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
unsigned long long int a = 17446744073709551615;
signed long long int b = -30000000003;
signed int c;
c = a/b;
cout << "\n\n\n" << c << endl;
}
Now, lately the answer I've been getting is zero. The size of my long long is 8 bytes, so more than enough to take it with the unsigned label. The C variable should also be big enough to handle the answer. (It should be -581 558 136, according to Google). So...
Edit I'd like to point out that on my machine...
Using numeric_limits a falls well withing the maximum of 18446744073709551615 and b falls within the minimum limits of -9223372036854775808.
You have a number of implicit conversions happening, most of them unnecessary.
unsigned long long int a = 17446744073709551615;
An unsuffixed decimal integer literal is of type int, long int, or long long int; it's never of an unsigned type. That particular value almost certainly exceeds the maximum value of a long long int (263-1). Unless your compiler has a signed integer type wider than 64 bits, that makes your program ill-formed.
Add a ULL suffix to ensure that the literal is of the correct type:
unsigned long long int a = 17446744073709551615ULL;
The value happens to be between 263-1 and 264-1, so it fits in a 64-bit unsigned type but not in a 64-bit signed type.
(Actually just the U would suffice, but it doesn't hurt to be explicit.)
signed long long int b = -30000000003;
This shouldn't be a problem. 30000000003 is of some signed integer type; if your compiler supports long long, which is at least 64 bits wide, there's no overflow. Still, as long as you need a suffix on the value of a, it wouldn't hurt to be explicit:
signed long long int b = -30000000003LL;
Now we have:
signed int c;
c = a/b;
Dividing an unsigned long long by a signed long long causes the signed operand to be converted to unsigned long long. In this case, the value being converted is negative, so it's converted to a large positive value. Converting -30000000003 to unsigned long long yields 18446744043709551613. Dividing 17446744073709551615 by 18446744043709551613 yields zero.
Unless your compiler supports integers wider than 64 bits (most don't), you won't be able to directly divide 17446744073709551615 by -30000000003 and get a mathematically correct answer, since there's no integer type that can represent both values. All arithmetic operators (other than the shift operators) require operands of the same type, with implicit conversions applied as necessary.
In this particular case, you can divide 17446744073709551615ULL by 30000000003ULL and then account for the sign. (Check the language rules for division of negative integers.)
If you really need to do this in general, you can resort to floating-point (which means you'll probably lose some precision) or use some arbitrary width integer arithmetic package like GMP.
b is getting treated as an unsigned number which is larger than a. Hence you are getting the answer as 0.
Try using it as
c = abs(a) / abs (b)
if ((a < 0 && b > 0 ) || (a> 0 && b < 0))
return -c;
return c;
I am transitioning from Java to C++ and have some questions about the long data type. In Java, to hold an integer greater than 232, you would simply write long x;. However, in C++, it seems that long is both a data type and a modifier.
There seems to be several ways to use long:
long x;
long long x;
long int x;
long long int x;
Also, it seems there are things such as:
long double x;
and so on.
What is the difference between all of these various data types, and do they all have the same purpose?
long and long int are identical. So are long long and long long int. In both cases, the int is optional.
As to the difference between the two sets, the C++ standard mandates minimum ranges for each, and that long long is at least as wide as long.
The controlling parts of the standard (C++11, but this has been around for a long time) are, for one, 3.9.1 Fundamental types, section 2 (a later section gives similar rules for the unsigned integral types):
There are five standard signed integer types : signed char, short int, int, long int, and long long int. In this list, each type provides at least as much storage as those preceding it in the list.
There's also a table 9 in 7.1.6.2 Simple type specifiers, which shows the "mappings" of the specifiers to actual types (showing that the int is optional), a section of which is shown below:
Specifier(s) Type
------------- -------------
long long int long long int
long long long long int
long int long int
long long int
Note the distinction there between the specifier and the type. The specifier is how you tell the compiler what the type is but you can use different specifiers to end up at the same type.
Hence long on its own is neither a type nor a modifier as your question posits, it's simply a specifier for the long int type. Ditto for long long being a specifier for the long long int type.
Although the C++ standard itself doesn't specify the minimum ranges of integral types, it does cite C99, in 1.2 Normative references, as applying. Hence the minimal ranges as set out in C99 5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types <limits.h> are applicable.
In terms of long double, that's actually a floating point value rather than an integer. Similarly to the integral types, it's required to have at least as much precision as a double and to provide a superset of values over that type (meaning at least those values, not necessarily more values).
Long and long int are at least 32 bits.
long long and long long int are at least 64 bits. You must be using a c99 compiler or better.
long doubles are a bit odd. Look them up on Wikipedia for details.
long is equivalent to long int, just as short is equivalent to short int. A long int is a signed integral type that is at least 32 bits, while a long long or long long int is a signed integral type is at least 64 bits.
This doesn't necessarily mean that a long long is wider than a long. Many platforms / ABIs use the LP64 model - where long (and pointers) are 64 bits wide. Win64 uses the LLP64, where long is still 32 bits, and long long (and pointers) are 64 bits wide.
There's a good summary of 64-bit data models here.
long double doesn't guarantee much other than it will be at least as wide as a double.
While in Java a long is always 64 bits, in C++ this depends on computer architecture and operating system. For example, a long is 64 bits on Linux and 32 bits on Windows (this was done to keep backwards-compatability, allowing 32-bit programs to compile on 64-bit Windows without any changes). long int is a synonym for long.
Later on, long long was introduced to mean "long (64 bits) on Windows for real this time". long long int is a synonym for this.
It is considered good C++ style to avoid short, int, long etc. and instead use:
std::int8_t # exactly 8 bits
std::int16_t # exactly 16 bits
std::int32_t # exactly 32 bits
std::int64_t # exactly 64 bits
std::size_t # can hold all possible object sizes, used for indexing
You can use these int*_t types by including the <cstdint> header. size_t is in <stdlib.h>.
This looks confusing because you are taking long as a datatype itself.
long is nothing but just the shorthand for long int when you are using it alone.
long is a modifier, you can use it with double also as long double.
long == long int.
Both of them take 4 bytes.
Historically, in early C times, when processors had 8 or 16 bit wordlength,intwas identical to todays short(16 bit). In a certain sense, int is a more abstract data type thanchar,short,longorlong long, as you cannot be sure about the bitwidth.
When definingint n;you could translate this with "give me the best compromise of bitwidth and speed on this machine for n". Maybe in the future you should expect compilers to translateintto be 64 bit. So when you want your variable to have 32 bits and not more, better use an explicitlongas data type.
[Edit: #include <stdint.h> seems to be the proper way to ensure bitwidths using the int##_t types, though it's not yet part of the standard.]
There is no deffirence, (long long x ) is equivalent to (long long int x ), but the second confirms that variable x is integer
i am observing strange behaviour when i run the following code.
i create a bitfield by using a struct, where i want to use 52 bits, so i use long int.
The size of long int is 64 bits on my system, i check it inside the code.
Somehow when i try to set one bit, it alwas sets two bits. one of them is the one i wanted to set and the second one is the index of the first one plus 32.
Cann anybody tell me, why is that?
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct foo {
long int x:52;
long int:12;
};
int main(){
struct foo test;
int index=0;
printf("%ld\n",sizeof(test));
while(index<64){
if(test.x & (1<<index))
printf("%i\n",index);
index++;
}
test.x=1;
index=0;
while(index<64){
if(test.x & (1<<index))
printf("%i\n",index);
index++;
}
return 0;
}
Sry forgot to post the output, so my question was basicly not understandable...
The Output it gives me is the following:
8
0
32
index is of type int, which is probably 32 bits on your system. Shifting a value by an amount greater than or equal to the number of bits in its type has undefined behavior.
Change index to unsigned long (bit-shifting signed types is ill-advised). Or you can change 1<<index to 1L << index, or even 1LL << index.
As others have pointed out, test is uninitialized. You can initialize it to all zeros like this:
struct foo test = { 0 };
The correct printf format for size_t is %zu, not %ld.
And it wouldn't be a bad idea to modify your code so it doesn't depend on the non-portable assumption that long is 64 bits. It can be as narrow as 32 bits. Consider using the uint_N_t types defined in <stdint.h>.
I should also mention that bit fields of types other than int, unsigned int, signed int, and _Bool (or bool) are implementation-defined.
You have undefined behavior in your code, as you check the bits in text.x without initializing the structure. Because you don't initialize the variable, it will contain random data.
How to convert from long long to int and the other way back in c++ ??
also what are the properties of long long , especially its maximum size,
thank in advance ..
int is guaranteed to be at least 16 bits wide. On modern systems, it's most commonly 32 bits (even on 64-bit systems).
long long, which didn't originally exist in C++, is guaranteed to be at least 64 bits wide. It's almost always exactly 64 bits wide.
The usual way to convert a value from one integer type to another is simply to assign it. Any necessary conversion will be done implicitly. For example:
int x = 42;
long long y = 9223372036854775807;
y = x; // implicitly converts from int to long long
x = y; // implicitly converts from long long to int
For a narrowing conversion, where the target type can't represent all the values of the source type, there's a risk of overflow; int may or may not be able to hold the value 9223372036854775807. In this case, the result is implementation-defined. The most likely behavior is that the high-order bits are discarded; for example, converting 9223372036854775807 to int might yield 2147483647. (This is clearer in hexadecimal; the values are 0x7fffffffffffffff and 0x7fffffff, respectively.)
If you need to convert explicitly, you can use a cast. A C-style cast uses the type name in parentheses:
(long long)x
Or you can use a C++-style static_cast:
static_cast<long long>(x)
which is somewhat safer than a C-style cast because it's restricted in which types it can operate on.
Type long long is typically 64 bits.
Type int is likely to be 32 bits, but not on all machines.
If you cast an int to a long long, you can do
my_long_long = (long long) my_int
and it will be just fine. If you go the other direction, like
my_int = (int) my_long_long
and the int is smaller than 64-bits, it won't be able to hold all the information, so the result may not be correct.
Size of int is only 2 bytes whereas the other one is usually larger than int. So if you are looking to convert long into int then you would end up loosing information. But the other way is possible without sacrificing the correctness of information.
Suppose a is of long type and b is of int type. Then int to long covertion:a=(long)b; . For other way:b=(int)a;.