Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #142941

Re: Application Exercises

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 4/9/19 7:35 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Challenge problem:  write a signed-integer equality determiner
>> without using any comparisons:  no comparison operators, no
>> conversions to bool, no &&, ||, or ?:, no if()'s, for()'s,
>> or while()'s, and (the sneaky one) no switch()'s.  A nice
>> little problem.  The gold standard is a solution that works
>> on any conforming implementation.
>
> Presumably, +0 should be equal to -0?  (of course, this only applies if
> you don't have a two's complement machine.

Yes, that is my operating assumption:  the result should be the
same as 'a == b', which AFAIK gives +0 == -0.

> I have a thought for a solution, but have the question if you are
> allowed comparisons in pre-processor directives, so the only comparisons
> are at compile time and not at execution time (with the assumption the
> values are execution time values).  The issue is that I want to convert a
> non-zero value to 1, which I can do without any comparisons, as long as
> I know how many cycles of reduction to run, which needs preprocessor
> comparisons, or hard wiring in knowledge of the number of bits in a
> signed int.

The code I wrote has one pre-processor comparison, to allow the
code to work in different versions of C.  The test is this:

    #if __STDC_VERSION__ > 199900

The code does not assume any particular values or bounds for the
number of bits in a signed int (or in intmax_t, which is the
type used when compiling as C99 or later).

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Application Exercises Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-06 14:23 -0400
  Re: Application Exercises Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-04-09 04:35 -0700
    Re: Application Exercises Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-04-09 13:29 +0100
      Re: Application Exercises Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-04-09 08:02 -0700
    Re: Application Exercises Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-09 22:15 -0400
      Re: Application Exercises Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-04-09 20:55 -0700
        Re: Application Exercises Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-04-09 22:21 -0600
          Re: Application Exercises Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-10 06:31 -0400
          Re: Application Exercises James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-04-10 07:43 -0400
        Re: Application Exercises Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-04-10 06:40 -0400
          Re: Application Exercises Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-04-10 08:15 -0700
      Re: Application Exercises James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-04-10 07:37 -0400

csiph-web