I was wondering why this size_t is used where I can use say int type. Its said that size_t is a return type of sizeof operator. What does it mean? like if I use sizeof(int) and store what its return to an int type variable, then it also works, it's not necessary to store it in a size_t type variable. I just clearly want to know the basic concept of using size_t with a clearly understandable example.Thanks
size_t is guaranteed to be able to represent the largest size possible, int is not. This means size_t is more portable.
For instance, what if int could only store up to 255 but you could allocate arrays of 5000 bytes? Clearly this wouldn't work, however with size_t it will.
The simplest example is pretty dated: on an old 16-bit-int system with 64 k of RAM, the value of an int can be anywhere from -32768 to +32767, but after:
char buf[40960];
the buffer buf occupies 40 kbytes, so sizeof buf is too big to fit in an int, and it needs an unsigned int.
The same thing can happen today if you use 32-bit int but allow programs to access more than 4 GB of RAM at a time, as is the case on what are called "I32LP64" models (32 bit int, 64-bit long and pointer). Here the type size_t will have the same range as unsigned long.
You use size_t mostly for casting pointers into unsigned integers of the same size, to perform calculations on pointers as if they were integers, that would otherwise be prevented at compile time. Such code is intended to compile and build correctly in the context of different pointer sizes, e.g. 32-bit model versus 64-bit.
It is implementation defined but on 64bit systems you will find that size_t is often 64bit while int is still 32bit (unless it's ILP64 or SILP64 model).
depending on what architecture you are on (16-bit, 32-bit or 64-bit) an int could be a different size.
if you want a specific size I use uint16_t or uint32_t .... You can check out this thread for more information
What does the C++ standard state the size of int, long type to be?
size_t is a typedef defined to store object size. It can store the maximum object size that is supported by a target platform. This makes it portable.
For example:
void * memcpy(void * destination, const void * source, size_t num);
memcpy() copies num bytes from source into destination. The maximum number of bytes that can be copied depends on the platform. So, making num as type size_t makes memcpy portable.
Refer https://stackoverflow.com/a/7706240/2820412 for further details.
size_t is a typedef for one of the fundamental unsigned integer types. It could be unsigned int, unsigned long, or unsigned long long depending on the implementation.
Its special property is that it can represent the size of (in bytes) of any object (which includes the largest object possible as well!). That is one of the reasons it is widely used in the standard library for array indexing and loop counting (that also solves the portability issue). Let me illustrate this with a simple example.
Consider a vector of length 2*UINT_MAX, where UINT_MAX denotes the maximum value of unsigned int (which is 4294967295 for my implementation considering 4 bytes for unsigned int).
std::vector vec(2*UINT_MAX,0);
If you would want to fill the vector using a for-loop such as this, it would not work because unsigned int can iterate only upto the point UINT_MAX (beyond which it will start again from 0).
for(unsigned int i = 0; i<2*UINT_MAX; ++i) vec[i] = i;
The solution here is to use size_t since it is guaranteed to represent the size of any object (and therefore our vector vec too!) in bytes. Note that for my implementation size_t is a typedef for unsigned long and therefore its max value = ULONG_MAX = 18446744073709551615 considering 8 bytes.
for(size_t i = 0; i<2*UINT_MAX; ++i) vec[i] = i;
References: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/size_t
Why is it that in C++ containers, it returns a size_type rather than an int? If we're creating our own structures, should we also be encouraged to use size_type?
In general, size_t should be used whenever you are measuring the size of something. It is really strange that size_t is only required to represent between 0 and SIZE_MAX bytes and SIZE_MAX is only required to be 65,535...
The other interesting constraints from the C++ and C Standards are:
the return type of sizeof() is size_t and it is an unsigned integer
operator new() takes the number of bytes to allocate as a size_t parameter
size_t is defined in <cstddef>
SIZE_MAX is defined in <limits.h> in C99 but not mentioned in C++98?!
size_t is not included in the list of fundamental integer types so I have always assumed that size_t is a type alias for one of the fundamental types: char, short int, int, and long int.
If you are counting bytes, then you should definitely be using size_t. If you are counting the number of elements, then you should probably use size_t since this seems to be what C++ has been using. In any case, you don't want to use int - at the very least use unsigned long or unsigned long long if you are using TR1. Or... even better... typedef whatever you end up using to size_type or just include <cstddef> and use std::size_t.
A few reasons might be:
The type (size_t) can be defined as the largest unsigned integer on that platform. For example, it might be defined as a 32 bit integer or a 64 bit integer or something else altogether that's capable of storing unsigned values of a great length
To make it clear when reading a program that the value is a size and not just a "regular" int
If you're writing an app that's just for you and/or throwaway, you're probably fine to use a basic int. If you're writing a library or something substantial, size_t is probably a better way to go.
Some of the answers are more complicated than necessary. A size_t is an unsigned integer type that is guaranteed to be big enough to store the size in bytes of any object in memory. In practice, it is always the same size as the pointer type. On 32 bit systems it is 32 bits. On 64 bit systems it is 64 bits.
All containers in the stl have various typedefs. For example, value_type is the element type, and size_type is the number stored type. In this way the containers are completely generic based on platform and implementation.
If you are creating your own containers, you should use size_type too. Typically this is done
typedef std::size_t size_type;
If you want a container's size, you should write
typedef vector<int> ints;
ints v;
v.push_back(4);
ints::size_type s = v.size();
What's nice is that if later you want to use a list, just change the typedef to
typedef list<int> ints;
And it will still work!
I assume you mean "size_t" -- this is a way of indicating an unsigned integer (an integer that can only be positive, never negative) -- it makes sense for containers' sizes since you can't have an array with a size of -7. I wouldn't say that you have to use size_t but it does indicate to others using your code "This number here is always positive." It also gives you a greater range of positive numbers, but that is likely to be unimportant unless you have some very big containers.
C++ is a language that could be implemented on different hardware architectures and platforms. As time has gone by it has supported 16-, 32-, and 64-bit architecture, and likely others in the future. size_type and other type aliases are ways for libraries to insulate the programmers/code from implementation details.
Assuming the size_type uses 32 bits on 32-bit machines and 64 bits on 64-bit machines, the same source code likely would work better if you've used size_type where needed. In most cases you could assume it would be the same as unsigned int, but it's not guaranteed.
size_type is used to express capacities of STL containers like std::vector whereas size_t is used to express byte size of an object in C/C++.
ints are not guaranteed to be 4 bytes in the specification, so they are not reliable. Yes, size_type would be preferred over ints
size_t is unsigned, so even if they're both 32 bits it doesn't mean quite the same thing as an unqualified int. I'm not sure why they added the type, but on many platforms today sizeof (size_t) == sizeof (int) == sizeof (long), so which type you choose is up to you. Note that those relations aren't guaranteed by the standard and are rapidly becoming out of date as 64 bit platforms move in.
For your own code, if you need to represent something that is a "size" conceptually and can never be negative, size_t would be a fine choice.
void f1(size_t n) {
if (n <= myVector.size()) { assert(false); }
size_t n1 = n - myVector.size(); // bug! myVector.size() can be > n
do_stuff_n_times(n1);
}
void f2(int n) {
int n1 = n - static_cast<int>(myVector.size());
assert(n1 >= 0);
do_stuff_n_times(n1);
}
f1() and f2() both have the same bug, but detecting the problem in f2() is easier. For more complex code, unsigned integer arithmetic bugs are not as easy to identify.
Personally I use signed int for all my sizes unless unsigned int should be used. I have never run into situation where my size won't fit into a 32 bit signed integer. I will probably use 64 bit signed integers before I use unsigned 32 bit integers.
The problem with using signed integers for size is a lot of static_cast from size_t to int in your code.
I've seen this pattern used a lot in C & C++.
unsigned int flags = -1; // all bits are true
Is this a good portable way to accomplish this? Or is using 0xffffffff or ~0 better?
I recommend you to do it exactly as you have shown, since it is the most straight forward one. Initialize to -1 which will work always, independent of the actual sign representation, while ~ will sometimes have surprising behavior because you will have to have the right operand type. Only then you will get the most high value of an unsigned type.
For an example of a possible surprise, consider this one:
unsigned long a = ~0u;
It won't necessarily store a pattern with all bits 1 into a. But it will first create a pattern with all bits 1 in an unsigned int, and then assign it to a. What happens when unsigned long has more bits is that not all of those are 1.
And consider this one, which will fail on a non-two's complement representation:
unsigned int a = ~0; // Should have done ~0u !
The reason for that is that ~0 has to invert all bits. Inverting that will yield -1 on a two's complement machine (which is the value we need!), but will not yield -1 on another representation. On a one's complement machine, it yields zero. Thus, on a one's complement machine, the above will initialize a to zero.
The thing you should understand is that it's all about values - not bits. The variable is initialized with a value. If in the initializer you modify the bits of the variable used for initialization, the value will be generated according to those bits. The value you need, to initialize a to the highest possible value, is -1 or UINT_MAX. The second will depend on the type of a - you will need to use ULONG_MAX for an unsigned long. However, the first will not depend on its type, and it's a nice way of getting the highest value.
We are not talking about whether -1 has all bits one (it doesn't always have). And we're not talking about whether ~0 has all bits one (it has, of course).
But what we are talking about is what the result of the initialized flags variable is. And for it, only -1 will work with every type and machine.
unsigned int flags = -1; is portable.
unsigned int flags = ~0; isn't portable because it
relies on a two's-complement representation.
unsigned int flags = 0xffffffff; isn't portable because
it assumes 32-bit ints.
If you want to set all bits in a way guaranteed by the C standard, use the first one.
Frankly I think all fff's is more readable. As to the comment that its an antipattern, if you really care that all the bits are set/cleared, I would argue that you are probably in a situation where you care about the size of the variable anyway, which would call for something like boost::uint16_t, etc.
A way which avoids the problems mentioned is to simply do:
unsigned int flags = 0;
flags = ~flags;
Portable and to the point.
I am not sure using an unsigned int for flags is a good idea in the first place in C++. What about bitset and the like?
std::numeric_limit<unsigned int>::max() is better because 0xffffffff assumes that unsigned int is a 32-bit integer.
unsigned int flags = -1; // all bits are true
"Is this a good[,] portable way to accomplish this?"
Portable? Yes.
Good? Debatable, as evidenced by all the confusion shown on this thread. Being clear enough that your fellow programmers can understand the code without confusion should be one of the dimensions we measure for good code.
Also, this method is prone to compiler warnings. To elide the warning without crippling your compiler, you'd need an explicit cast. For example,
unsigned int flags = static_cast<unsigned int>(-1);
The explicit cast requires that you pay attention to the target type. If you're paying attention to the target type, then you'll naturally avoid the pitfalls of the other approaches.
My advice would be to pay attention to the target type and make sure there are no implicit conversions. For example:
unsigned int flags1 = UINT_MAX;
unsigned int flags2 = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0);
unsigned long flags3 = ULONG_MAX;
unsigned long flags4 = ~static_cast<unsigned long>(0);
All of which are correct and more obvious to your fellow programmers.
And with C++11: We can use auto to make any of these even simpler:
auto flags1 = UINT_MAX;
auto flags2 = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0);
auto flags3 = ULONG_MAX;
auto flags4 = ~static_cast<unsigned long>(0);
I consider correct and obvious better than simply correct.
Converting -1 into any unsigned type is guaranteed by the standard to result in all-ones. Use of ~0U is generally bad since 0 has type unsigned int and will not fill all the bits of a larger unsigned type, unless you explicitly write something like ~0ULL. On sane systems, ~0 should be identical to -1, but since the standard allows ones-complement and sign/magnitude representations, strictly speaking it's not portable.
Of course it's always okay to write out 0xffffffff if you know you need exactly 32 bits, but -1 has the advantage that it will work in any context even when you do not know the size of the type, such as macros that work on multiple types, or if the size of the type varies by implementation. If you do know the type, another safe way to get all-ones is the limit macros UINT_MAX, ULONG_MAX, ULLONG_MAX, etc.
Personally I always use -1. It always works and you don't have to think about it.
As long as you have #include <limits.h> as one of your includes, you should just use
unsigned int flags = UINT_MAX;
If you want a long's worth of bits, you could use
unsigned long flags = ULONG_MAX;
These values are guaranteed to have all the value bits of the result set to 1, regardless of how signed integers are implemented.
Yes. As mentioned in other answers, -1 is the most portable; however, it is not very semantic and triggers compiler warnings.
To solve these issues, try this simple helper:
static const struct All1s
{
template<typename UnsignedType>
inline operator UnsignedType(void) const
{
static_assert(std::is_unsigned<UnsignedType>::value, "This is designed only for unsigned types");
return static_cast<UnsignedType>(-1);
}
} ALL_BITS_TRUE;
Usage:
unsigned a = ALL_BITS_TRUE;
uint8_t b = ALL_BITS_TRUE;
uint16_t c = ALL_BITS_TRUE;
uint32_t d = ALL_BITS_TRUE;
uint64_t e = ALL_BITS_TRUE;
On Intel's IA-32 processors it is OK to write 0xFFFFFFFF to a 64-bit register and get the expected results. This is because IA32e (the 64-bit extension to IA32) only supports 32-bit immediates. In 64-bit instructions 32-bit immediates are sign-extended to 64-bits.
The following is illegal:
mov rax, 0ffffffffffffffffh
The following puts 64 1s in RAX:
mov rax, 0ffffffffh
Just for completeness, the following puts 32 1s in the lower part of RAX (aka EAX):
mov eax, 0ffffffffh
And in fact I've had programs fail when I wanted to write 0xffffffff to a 64-bit variable and I got a 0xffffffffffffffff instead. In C this would be:
uint64_t x;
x = UINT64_C(0xffffffff)
printf("x is %"PRIx64"\n", x);
the result is:
x is 0xffffffffffffffff
I thought to post this as a comment to all the answers that said that 0xFFFFFFFF assumes 32 bits, but so many people answered it I figured I'd add it as a separate answer.
See litb's answer for a very clear explanation of the issues.
My disagreement is that, very strictly speaking, there are no guarantees for either case. I don't know of any architecture that does not represent an unsigned value of 'one less than two to the power of the number of bits' as all bits set, but here is what the Standard actually says (3.9.1/7 plus note 44):
The representations of integral types shall define values by use of a pure binary numeration system. [Note 44:]A positional representation for integers that uses the binary digits 0 and 1, in which the values represented by successive bits are additive, begin with 1, and are multiplied by successive integral power of 2, except perhaps for the bit with the highest position.
That leaves the possibility for one of the bits to be anything at all.
I would not do the -1 thing. It's rather non-intuitive (to me at least). Assigning signed data to an unsigned variable just seems to be a violation of the natural order of things.
In your situation, I always use 0xFFFF. (Use the right number of Fs for the variable size of course.)
[BTW, I very rarely see the -1 trick done in real-world code.]
Additionally, if you really care about the individual bits in a vairable, it would be good idea to start using the fixed-width uint8_t, uint16_t, uint32_t types.
Although the 0xFFFF (or 0xFFFFFFFF, etc.) may be easier to read, it can break portability in code which would otherwise be portable. Consider, for example, a library routine to count how many items in a data structure have certain bits set (the exact bits being specified by the caller). The routine may be totally agnostic as to what the bits represent, but still need to have an "all bits set" constant. In such a case, -1 will be vastly better than a hex constant since it will work with any bit size.
The other possibility, if a typedef value is used for the bitmask, would be to use ~(bitMaskType)0; if bitmask happens to only be a 16-bit type, that expression will only have 16 bits set (even if 'int' would otherwise be 32 bits) but since 16 bits will be all that are required, things should be fine provided that one actually uses the appropriate type in the typecast.
Incidentally, expressions of the form longvar &= ~[hex_constant] have a nasty gotcha if the hex constant is too large to fit in an int, but will fit in an unsigned int. If an int is 16 bits, then longvar &= ~0x4000; or longvar &= ~0x10000; will clear one bit of longvar, but longvar &= ~0x8000; will clear out bit 15 and all bits above that. Values which fit in int will have the complement operator applied to a type int, but the result will be sign extended to long, setting the upper bits. Values which are too big for unsigned int will have the complement operator applied to type long. Values which are between those sizes, however, will apply the complement operator to type unsigned int, which will then be converted to type long without sign extension.
As others have mentioned, -1 is the correct way to create an integer that will convert to an unsigned type with all bits set to 1. However, the most important thing in C++ is using correct types. Therefore, the correct answer to your problem (which includes the answer to the question you asked) is this:
std::bitset<32> const flags(-1);
This will always contain the exact amount of bits you need. It constructs a std::bitset with all bits set to 1 for the same reasons mentioned in other answers.
It is certainly safe, as -1 will always have all available bits set, but I like ~0 better. -1 just doesn't make much sense for an unsigned int. 0xFF... is not good because it depends on the width of the type.
Practically: Yes
Theoretically: No.
-1 = 0xFFFFFFFF (or whatever size an int is on your platform) is only true with two's complement arithmetic. In practice, it will work, but there are legacy machines out there (IBM mainframes, etc.) where you've got an actual sign bit rather than a two's complement representation. Your proposed ~0 solution should work everywhere.
I say:
int x;
memset(&x, 0xFF, sizeof(int));
This will always give you the desired result.
Leveraging on the fact that assigning all bits to one for an unsigned type is equivalent to taking the maximum possible value for the given type,
and extending the scope of the question to all unsigned integer types:
Assigning -1 works for any unsigned integer type (unsigned int, uint8_t, uint16_t, etc.) for both C and C++.
As an alternative, for C++, you can either:
Include <limits> and use std::numeric_limits< your_type >::max()
Write a custom templated function (This would also allow some sanity check, i.e. if the destination type is really an unsigned type)
The purpose could be add more clarity, as assigning -1 would always need some explanatory comment.
A way to make the meaning bit more obvious and yet to avoid repeating the type:
const auto flags = static_cast<unsigned int>(-1);
An additional effort to emphasize, why Adrian McCarthy's approach here might be the best solution at latest since C++11 in terms of a compromise between standard conformity, type safety/explicit clearness and reduction of possible ambiguities:
unsigned int flagsPreCpp11 = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0);
auto flags = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0); // C++11 initialization
predeclaredflags = ~static_cast<decltype(predeclaredflags)>(0); // C++11 assignment to already declared variable
I'm going to explain my preference in detail below. As Johannes mentioned totally correctly, the fundamental origin of irritations here is the question about value vs. according bit representation semantics and about what types we're talking about exactly (the assigned value type vs. the possible compile time integral constant's type). Since there's no standard built-in mechanism to explicitly ensure the set of all bits to 1 for the concrete use case of the OP about unsigned integer values, it's obvious, that it's impossible to be fully independent of value semantics here (std::bitset is a common pure bit-layer refering container but the question was about unsigned integers in general). But we might be able to reduce ambiguity here.
Comparison of the 'better' standard compliant approaches:
The OP's way:
unsigned int flags = -1;
PROs:
is "established" and short
is quite intuitive in terms of modulo perspective of value to "natural" bit value representation
changing the target unsigned type to unsigned long for instance is possible without any further adaptions
CONs:
At least beginners might not be sure about the standard conformity ("Do I have to concern about padding bits?").
Violates type ranges (in the heavier way: signed vs. unsigned).
Solely from the code, you do not directly see any bit semantics association.
Refering to maximum values via defines:
unsigned int flags = UINT_MAX;
This circumvents the signed unsigned transition issue of the -1 approach but introduces several new problems: In doubt, one has to look twice here again, at the latest if you want to change the target type to unsigned long for instance. And here, one has to be sure about the fact, that the maximum value leads to all bits set to 1 by the standard (and padding bit concerns again). Bit semantics are also not obvious here directly from the code solely again.
Refering to maximum values more explicitly:
auto flags = std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
On my opinion, that's the better maximum value approach since it's macro/define free and one is explicit about the involved type. But all other concerns about the approach type itself remain.
Adrian's approach (and why I think, it's the preferred one before C++11 and since):
unsigned int flagsPreCpp11 = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0);
auto flagsCpp11 = ~static_cast<unsigned int>(0);
PROs:
Only the simplest integral compile time constant is used: 0. So no worries about further bit representation or (implicit) casts are justified. From an intuitive point of view, I think we all can agree on the fact, that the bit representation for zero is commonly clearer than for maximum values, not only for unsigned integrals.
No type ambiguities are involved, no further look-ups required in doubt.
Explicit bit semantics are involved here via the complement ~. So it's quite clear from the code, what the intention was. And it's also very explicit, on which type and type range, the complement is applied.
CONs:
If assigned to a member for instance, there's a small chance that you mismatch types with pre C++11:
Declaration in class:
unsigned long m_flags;
Initialization in constructor:
m_flags(~static_cast<unsigned int>(0))
But since C++11, the usage of decltype + auto is powerful to prevent most of these possible issues. And some of these type mismatch scenarios (on interface boundaries for instance) are also possible for the -1 approach.
Robust final C++11 approach for pre-declared variables:
m_flags(~static_cast<decltype(m_flags)>(0)) // member initialization case
So with a full view on the weighting of the PROs and CONs of all approaches here, I recommend this one as the preferred approach, at latest since C++11.
Update: Thanks to a hint by Andrew Henle, I removed the statement about its readability since that might be a too subjective statement. But I still think, its readability is at least not that worse than most of the maximum value approaches or the ones with explicit maximum value provision via compile time integrals/literals since static_cast-usage is "established" too and built-in in contrast to defines/macros and even the std-lib.
yes the representation shown is very much correct as if we do it the other way round u will require an operator to reverse all the bits but in this case the logic is quite straightforward if we consider the size of the integers in the machine
for instance in most machines an integer is 2 bytes = 16 bits maximum value it can hold is 2^16-1=65535 2^16=65536
0%65536=0
-1%65536=65535 which corressponds to 1111.............1 and all the bits are set to 1 (if we consider residue classes mod 65536)
hence it is much straight forward.
I guess
no if u consider this notion it is perfectly dine for unsigned ints and it actually works out
just check the following program fragment
int main()
{
unsigned int a=2;
cout<<(unsigned int)pow(double(a),double(sizeof(a)*8));
unsigned int b=-1;
cout<<"\n"<<b;
getchar();
return 0;
}
answer for b = 4294967295 whcih is -1%2^32 on 4 byte integers
hence it is perfectly valid for unsigned integers
in case of any discrepancies plzz report