Unsigned and Signed int and printf - c++

I understand that I am assigning signed int a value that is larger than what it can handle. Also I should be using %d for signed and %u for unsigned. Similarly I should not be assigning -ve value to unsigned. But if I make such assignments and use printf as below, I get the results show below.
My understanding is that in each case, the number of converted to its two's compliment binary representation which is same for -1 or 4294967295. That is why %u for signed prints 4294967295 by ignoring -ve leftmost bit. When used %d for signed int, it uses left most bit as -ve flag and prints -1. Similarly %u for unsigned prints unsigned value but %d causes it to treat the number as signed and thus prints -1. Is that correct?
signed int si = 4294967295;
unsigned int ui = 4294967295;
printf("si = u=%u d=%d\n", si, si);
printf("ui = u=%u d=%d\n", ui, ui);
Output:
si = u=4294967295 d=-1
ui = u=4294967295 d=-1
signed int si = -1;
unsigned int ui = -1;
printf("si = u=%u d=%d\n", si, si);
printf("ui = u=%u d=%d\n", ui, ui);
Output:
si = u=4294967295 d=-1
ui = u=4294967295 d=-1

That is why %u for signed prints 4294967295 by ignoring -ve leftmost bit. When used %d for signed int, it uses left most bit as -ve flag and prints -1.
In the case of unsigned, the "leftmost" or most significant bit is not ignored, and is not negative; rather it has a place value of 231.
In the negative case, the sign bit is not a flag; instead it is a bit with a place value of -231.
In both cases the value of the integer is equal to the sum of the place values of all the binary digits (bits) set to 1.
The encoding of signed values in this way is known as two's complement. It is not the only possible encoding; what you described is known as sign and magnitude for example, and one's complement is another possibility. However, these alternative encodings are seldom encountered in practice, not least because two's complement is how arithmetic works on modern hardware in all but perhaps the most arcane architectures.

There are a few things going on here let's start out by saying that using the incorrect format specifier to printf is undefined behavior which means the results of your program are unpredictable, what actually happens will depends on many factors including your compiler, architecture, optimization level, etc...
For signed/unsigned conversions, that is defined by the respective standards, both C and C++ make it implementation defined behavior to convert a value that is larger than be stored in a signed integer type, from the C++ draft standard:
If the destination type is signed, the value is unchanged if it can be represented in the destination type (and
bit-field width); otherwise, the value is implementation-defined.
for example gcc chooses to use the same convention as unsigned:
For conversion to a type of width N, the value is reduced modulo 2^N to be within range of the type; no signal is raised.
When you assign -1 to an unsigned value in both C and C++ the result will always be the maximum unsigned value of the type, from the draft C++ standard:
If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the least
unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2n where n is
the number of bits used to represent the unsigned type). [ Note: In a
two’s complement representation, this conversion is conceptual and
there is no change in the bit pattern (if there is no truncation).
—end note ]
The wording from C99 is easier to digest:
Otherwise, if the new type is unsigned, the value is converted by
repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that
can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of
the new type.
So we have the following:
-1 + (UNSIGNED_MAX + 1)
the result of which is UNSIGNED_MAX
As for printf and incorrect format specifier we can see form the draft C99 standard section 7.19.6.1 The fprintf function says:
If a conversion specification is invalid, the behavior is
undefined.248) If any argument is not the correct type for the
corresponding conversion specification, the behavior is undefined.
fprintf covers printf with respect to format specifiers and C++ falls back in C with respect to printf.

Related

c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned

According to the rules on implicit conversions between signed and unsigned integer types, discussed here and here, when summing an unsigned int with a int, the signed int is first converted to an unsigned int.
Consider, e.g., the following minimal program
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
unsigned int n = 2;
int x = -1;
std::cout << n + x << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The output of the program is, nevertheless, 1 as expected: x is converted first to an unsigned int, and the sum with n leads to an integer overflow, giving the "right" answer.
In a code like the previous one, if I know for sure that n + x is positive, can I assume that the sum of unsigned int n and int x gives the expected value?
In a code like the previous one, if I know for sure that n + x is positive, can I assume that the sum of unsigned int n and int x gives the expected value?
Yes.
First, the signed value converted to unsigned, using modulo arithmetic:
If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the least unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2n
where n is the number of bits used to represent the unsigned type).
Then two unsigned values will be added using modulo arithmetic:
Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular size of integer.
This means that you'll get the expected answer.
Even, if the result would be negative in the mathematical sense, the result in C++ would be a number which is modulo-equal to the negative number.
Note that I've supposed here that you add two same-sized integers.
I think you can be sure and it is not implementation defined, although this statement requires some interpretations of the standard when it comes to systems that do not use two's complement for representing negative values.
First, let's state the things that are clear: unsigned integrals do not overflow but take on a modulo 2^nrOfBits-value (cf this online C++ standard draft):
6.7.1 Fundamental types
(7) Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n
where n is the number of bits in the value representation of that
particular size of integer.
So it's just a matter of whether a negative value nv is converted correctly into an unsigned integral bit pattern nv(conv) such that x + nv(conv) will always be the same as x - nv. For the case of a system using two's complement, things are clear, since the two's complement is actually designed such that this arithmetic works immediately.
For systems using other representations of negative values, we'll have to read the standard carefully:
7.8 Integral conversions
(2) If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the
least unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2n
where n is the number of bits used to represent the unsigned type). [
Note: In a two’s complement representation, this conversion is
conceptual and there is no change in the bit pattern (if there is
notruncation). —endnote]
As the footnote explicitly says, that in a two's complement representation, there is no change in the bit pattern, we may assume that in systems other than 2s complement a real conversion will take place such that x + nv(conv) == x - nv.
So due to 7.8 (2), I'd say that your assumption is valid.

Why does (unsigned int = -1) show the largest value that it can store? [duplicate]

In C or C++ it is said that the maximum number a size_t (an unsigned int data type) can hold is the same as casting -1 to that data type. for example see Invalid Value for size_t
Why?
I mean, (talking about 32 bit ints) AFAIK the most significant bit holds the sign in a signed data type (that is, bit 0x80000000 to form a negative number). then, 1 is 0x00000001.. 0x7FFFFFFFF is the greatest positive number a int data type can hold.
Then, AFAIK the binary representation of -1 int should be 0x80000001 (perhaps I'm wrong). why/how this binary value is converted to anything completely different (0xFFFFFFFF) when casting ints to unsigned?? or.. how is it possible to form a binary -1 out of 0xFFFFFFFF?
I have no doubt that in C: ((unsigned int)-1) == 0xFFFFFFFF or ((int)0xFFFFFFFF) == -1 is equally true than 1 + 1 == 2, I'm just wondering why.
C and C++ can run on many different architectures, and machine types. Consequently, they can have different representations of numbers: Two's complement, and Ones' complement being the most common. In general you should not rely on a particular representation in your program.
For unsigned integer types (size_t being one of those), the C standard (and the C++ standard too, I think) specifies precise overflow rules. In short, if SIZE_MAX is the maximum value of the type size_t, then the expression
(size_t) (SIZE_MAX + 1)
is guaranteed to be 0, and therefore, you can be sure that (size_t) -1 is equal to SIZE_MAX. The same holds true for other unsigned types.
Note that the above holds true:
for all unsigned types,
even if the underlying machine doesn't represent numbers in Two's complement. In this case, the compiler has to make sure the identity holds true.
Also, the above means that you can't rely on specific representations for signed types.
Edit: In order to answer some of the comments:
Let's say we have a code snippet like:
int i = -1;
long j = i;
There is a type conversion in the assignment to j. Assuming that int and long have different sizes (most [all?] 64-bit systems), the bit-patterns at memory locations for i and j are going to be different, because they have different sizes. The compiler makes sure that the values of i and j are -1.
Similarly, when we do:
size_t s = (size_t) -1
There is a type conversion going on. The -1 is of type int. It has a bit-pattern, but that is irrelevant for this example because when the conversion to size_t takes place due to the cast, the compiler will translate the value according to the rules for the type (size_t in this case). Thus, even if int and size_t have different sizes, the standard guarantees that the value stored in s above will be the maximum value that size_t can take.
If we do:
long j = LONG_MAX;
int i = j;
If LONG_MAX is greater than INT_MAX, then the value in i is implementation-defined (C89, section 3.2.1.2).
It's called two's complement. To make a negative number, invert all the bits then add 1. So to convert 1 to -1, invert it to 0xFFFFFFFE, then add 1 to make 0xFFFFFFFF.
As to why it's done this way, Wikipedia says:
The two's-complement system has the advantage of not requiring that the addition and subtraction circuitry examine the signs of the operands to determine whether to add or subtract. This property makes the system both simpler to implement and capable of easily handling higher precision arithmetic.
Your first question, about why (unsigned)-1 gives the largest possible unsigned value is only accidentally related to two's complement. The reason -1 cast to an unsigned type gives the largest value possible for that type is because the standard says the unsigned types "follow the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular size of integer."
Now, for 2's complement, the representation of the largest possible unsigned value and -1 happen to be the same -- but even if the hardware uses another representation (e.g. 1's complement or sign/magnitude), converting -1 to an unsigned type must still produce the largest possible value for that type.
Two's complement is very nice for doing subtraction just like addition :)
11111110 (254 or -2)
+00000001 ( 1)
---------
11111111 (255 or -1)
11111111 (255 or -1)
+00000001 ( 1)
---------
100000000 ( 0 + 256)
That is two's complement encoding.
The main bonus is that you get the same encoding whether you are using an unsigned or signed int. If you subtract 1 from 0 the integer simply wraps around. Therefore 1 less than 0 is 0xFFFFFFFF.
Because the bit pattern for an int
-1 is FFFFFFFF in hexadecimal unsigned.
11111111111111111111111111111111 binary unsigned.
But in int the first bit signifies whether it is negative.
But in unsigned int the first bit is just extra number because a unsigned int cannot be negative. So the extra bit makes an unsigned int able to store bigger numbers.
As with an unsigned int 11111111111111111111111111111111 (binary) or FFFFFFFF (hexadecimal) is the biggest number a uint can store.
Unsigned Ints are not recommended because if they go negative then it overflows and goes to the biggest number.

C++ Converting unsigned to signed integer portability

I know that in C the conversion of unsigned to signed integers is implementation defined, but what is it for C++? I figured someone would have asked this already, and I searched but I couldn't find it.
I have a function that operates on an unsigned integer and returns a related unsigned integer. I am passing that function a signed integer by casting to unsigned similar to int num = -6; unsigned ret = func((unsigned)num); int ret_as_signed = (int)ret;. In Visual Studio that works fine, but I wonder how portable it is.
Is there a portable way to convert unsigned integers to signed integers? It it possible to just reverse how signed integers are converted to unsigned via wraparound? Thanks
Since C++20 finally got rid of ones' complement and sign-magnitude integers, conversion between signed and unsigned integers is well-defined and reversible. All standard integer types are now 2's complement and conversion between signed and unsigned does not alter any bits in the representation.
For versions of C++ prior to C++20, the original answer still applies. I'm leaving it as a historical remnant.
Conversion of an unsigned integer to a signed integer where the unsigned value is outside of the range of the signed type is implementation-defined. You cannot count on being able to round-trip a negative integer to unsigned and then back to signed. [1]
C++ standard, [conv.integral], § 4.7/3:
If the destination type is signed, the value is unchanged if it can be represented in the destination type (and bit-field width); otherwise, the value is implementation-defined.
[1] It seems likely that it will work, but there are no guarantees.
For the portable version of the inverse of signed->unsigned conversion, how about:
if ( ret <= INT_MAX )
ret_as_signed = ret;
else
ret_as_signed = -(int)(UINT_MAX - ret) - 1;
You could probably generalize this using the templates in <limits>.

C++ function with unsigned int parameter gets strange result where call it with negitive

I am new to C++, I am confused with C++'s behavior for the code below:
#include <iostream>
void hello(unsigned int x, unsigned int y){
std::cout<<x<<std::endl;
std::cout<<y<<std::endl;
std::cout<<x+y<<std::endl;
}
int main(){
int a = -1;
int b = 3;
hello(a,b);
return 1;
}
The x in the output is a very large integer:4294967295, I know that negative integer convert to unsigned will behave like this. But why x+y in the output is 2?
Contrary to the other answers, there is no undefined behavior here, and there is no overflow. Unsigned integers use modulo 2n arithmetic.
Section 4.7 paragraph 2 of the standard says "If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the least unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2n where n is the number of bits used to represent the unsigned type)." This dictates that -1 is equal to the largest possible unsigned int (modulo 2n).
Section 3.9.1 paragraph 4 says "Unsigned integers, declared unsigned, shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular size of integer." To make it clear what this means, the footnote to this clause says "This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type."
In other words, converting -1 to 4294967295 is not just defined behavior, it is required behavior (assuming 32 bit integers). Similarly, adding 3 to that value and yielding 2 as a result is also required behavior. In this case, the value of n is irrelevant. The third value printed by hello() must be 2 or the implementation is not compliant with the standard.
Because unsigned int's will overflow. In other words, a=-1 (signed) which is 1 value below the maximum value for unsigned int's, 4294967295.
Then you add 3, the int will overflow and start at 0, so -1+3 =2
Passing negative number to unsigned int as parameter gives you an undefined behavior. The default int is a signed. It has a range of –2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647. Unsigned int range is from 0 to 4,294,967,295.
This isn't so much having to do with C++ but with how computers represent signed and unsigned numbers.
This is a good source on that. Basically, signed numbers are (usually) represented using two's complement, in which the most significant bit has a value of -2^n. In effect, what his means is that the positive numbers are represented the same in two's complement as they are in regular unsigned binary.
-1 is represented as all ones, which when interpreted as an unsigned integer will be the largest integer that can be represented (4294967295, when dealing with 32 bits).
One of the great things about using two complement to represent signed numbers is that you can perform addition and subtraction in the exact same way as with unsigned numbers and it will work out correctly, so long as the number does not exceed the bounds that can be represented. This isn't as easy with other forms such as signed-magnitude.
So, what this means is that because the result of -1 + 3 = 2, and because 2 is positive, it will be interpreted the same as if it were unsigned. Thus, it prints 2.

64 bit integer initialization error in Visual Studio 2010 SP1

I have a weird bug/error/self stupidity concern. I'm developing a small application in C, and I'm using Visual Studio 2010 SP1. The offending code:
uint64_t sum_squared_X = 65535*65535*64;
int64_t sum_squared_Y = 65535*65535*64;
When debugging, I get these results:
sum_squared_X = 18446744073701163072;
sum_squared_Y = -8388544;
Question is, why? An uint64_t has a maximum value of 2^64-1 or 18446744073709551615, and an int64_t a maximum value of 2^63-1 or 9223372036854775807.
65535*65535*64 = 274869518400, which is lower than both maximums. Then why am I getting these results?
I'm completely lost here, some help would be appreciated.
Short answer: 65535 is multiplied by 65535 using 32-big signed arithmetic, producing -131,071. This is then multiplied by -64 and converted to uint64_t (creating a larger positive value due to wrapping) or int64_t (preserving the result of multiplying -131,071 by 64).
Long answer:
The type of an unsuffixed integer decimal constant depends on its value. It is the first of this list that can represent its value: int, long int, long long int. (Adding a suffix or using an octal or hexadecimal constant changes the list.) Because these types depend on the C implementation, the behavior depends on the C implementation.
It is likely that, in your machine, int is 32 bits. Therefore, the type of “65535” is int, and so is the type of “64”.
Your expression starts with “65535*65535”. This multiplies 65,535 by 65,535. The mathematical result is 4,924,836,225 (in hex, 0xfffe0001). With a 32-bit signed int, this overflows the representable values. This is undefined behavior in the C standard. What commonly happens in many implementations is that the value “wraps around” from 231-1 (the highest representable value) to -231 (the lowest representable value). Another view of the same behavior is that the bits of the mathematical result, 0xfffe0001, are interpreted as the encoding of a 32-bit signed int. In two’s complement, 0xffffe0001 is -131,071.
Then your expression multiplies by 64. -131,071*64 does not overflow; the result is -8,388,544 (with encoding 0xff800040).
Finally, you use the result to initialize a uint64_t or int64_t object. This initialization causes a conversion to the destination type.
The int64_t conversion is straightforward; the input to the conversion is -8,388,544, and this is exactly representable in int64_t, so the result is -8,388,544, which the compiler likely implements simply by extending the sign bit (producing the encoding 0xffffffffff800040).
The uint64_t conversion is troublesome, because -8,388,544 cannot be represented in a uint64_t. According to the 1999 C standard, 6.3.1.3 2, “the value is converted by repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of the new type.” For uint64_t, “one more than the maximum value that can be represented in the new type” is 264. So the result is -8,388,544 + 264, which is 18,446,744,073,701,163,072. This also has the encoding 0xffffffffff800040.
For conversion from a narrower width to a wider width, this operation of adding one more than maximum value is equivalent to copying the sign bit of the old type to all higher bits in the new type (sign extension). For conversion from a wider width to a narrower width, it is equivalent to discarding the high bits. In either case, the result is the residue modulo 2n, where n is the number of bits in the new type.
When I compile your example, I clearly get an integer constant overflow warning for each of those lines. This is because the right side, the constants, is usually stored in a basic integer. You have to change the storage of those values to keep an overflow condition from happening. To fix this, do the following instead:
uint64_t sum_squared_X = (uint64_t)65535*65535*64;
int64_t sum_squared_Y = (uint64_t)65535*65535*64;
Read more here