Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types |
| Date | 2011-04-26 08:15 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnfwp5yrfp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <cl7f88-h4a.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <rubrum-2758E7.11484825042011@news.albasani.net> <db2h88-t8c.ln1@jones.homeip.net> <lnr58qyns1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <rubrum-F140C5.20322925042011@news.albasani.net> |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> In article <lnr58qyns1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> lawrence.jones@siemens.com writes:
>> > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> People writing safety-critical code do not
>> >> range check arguments, and examine return values?
>> >
>> > Of course they do, but that isn't sufficient to prevent overflow.
>>
>> Well, carefully range-checking each operand of each arithmetic operator
>> (assuming that "arguments" includes operands) should be sufficient to
>> prevent overflow. But it's hardly practical if the compiler doesn't
>> generate the checking code for you.
>>
>> int x = rand();
>> int y = rand();
>> /* checking here */
>> int z = x * y;
>
> No, no, no, no, no.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
> Reduce x and y to < sqrt(maximum rand()) so that overflow does not occur.
> Range check input arguments so the computation does not overflow.
In other words, if the result you want to compute will cause an
overflow, compute a different result? Sorry, you don't get to do that.
The relevant bound is sqrt(INT_MAX), not sqrt(RAND_MAX). But even then,
restricting the ranges of both operands that way rejects many cases that
would not overflow. For example, if x==1, any value of y is ok. If x
== 7, and INT_MAX == 2**31-1, any value of y up to 306783378 is ok. And
so forth. And as Ben points out, my use of rand() obscures the case
where x and/or y can be negative.
>> Checking whether x * y will overflow without actually performing
>> the multiplication is certainly possible, but (a) it's tedious, and
>> (b) the check is likely to be more expensive than the multiplication.
Suppose you're asked to write a program with the following
specification:
The program takes exactly two command-line arguments, both of which
are string representations of int values. If it doesn't receive
exactly two arguments, it terminates with an error message and
returns a failure indication to the environment; otherwise it may
assume that both arguments are valid int values. If the product of
the two arguments is in the range INT_MIN..INT_MAX, the product is
printed to stdout followed by a new-line. Otherwise, the program
aborts with an error message and returns a failure indication to
the environment.
You don't get to change the requirements to avoid overflow. You don't
get to print an error message for any arguments that would not overflow.
You must print an error message for any arguments that would overflow.
Here's a partial solution:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int multiplication_would_overflow(int x, int y)
{
/*
* TODO: Implement this.
*/
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc != 3) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s num num\n", argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
/*
* Note: atoi() does not perform error checking.
*/
const int x = atoi(argv[1]);
const int y = atoi(argv[2]);
if (multiplication_would_overflow(x, y)) {
fprintf(stderr, "%d * %d would overflow\n", x, y);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
else {
printf("%d\n", x * y);
}
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 14:21 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-20 09:49 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 15:21 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Peter Nilsson <airia@acay.com.au> - 2011-04-20 15:34 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-21 17:57 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-21 19:26 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-20 21:45 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-21 06:20 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-21 13:54 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-21 18:50 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-21 16:16 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-21 19:27 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-21 17:24 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-21 21:00 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-21 21:33 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-22 08:22 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-22 14:25 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-22 09:21 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-22 14:22 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-22 17:58 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-22 17:33 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-23 09:01 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-23 14:07 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:42 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-25 22:34 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types gordonb.nw63u@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-04-26 10:59 -0500
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "madamemandm@yahoo.com" <madamemandm@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-22 07:55 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-04-22 17:03 +0200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-22 08:42 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-22 14:15 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-22 15:23 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-22 17:37 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-23 02:46 +0000
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-23 14:04 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-04-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:43 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-23 23:38 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:46 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-25 22:43 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-24 11:34 +0000
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:47 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 20:25 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-26 07:45 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-04-24 23:50 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-25 02:13 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 21:36 +1200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:48 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-04-25 16:32 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-25 15:22 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 20:32 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-04-26 09:42 +0200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-26 12:04 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-26 08:15 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-26 08:35 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-26 08:52 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-26 09:15 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-26 10:22 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types gordonb.s68qo@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-04-26 19:59 -0500
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "madamemandm@yahoo.com" <madamemandm@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-27 14:15 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-04-28 12:15 +0200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-28 03:26 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-28 12:09 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-28 08:03 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> - 2011-04-29 05:42 -0500
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 20:27 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-26 15:30 +1200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-26 00:14 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-26 20:23 +1200
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-26 04:17 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-04-22 06:46 +0000
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-04-22 09:37 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-04-25 11:49 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-22 09:09 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "madamemandm@yahoo.com" <madamemandm@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-22 09:46 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-22 20:21 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-04-20 10:06 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 15:28 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-04-20 16:11 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-04-20 08:14 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 16:24 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 17:09 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 17:19 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-20 12:09 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 21:39 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-20 15:01 -0700
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-21 11:16 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-04-20 13:06 -0400
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-20 18:16 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types gordonb.bfd7y@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-04-21 11:22 -0500
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> - 2011-04-21 19:27 +0100
Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-04-21 12:09 -0700
csiph-web