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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #97455

Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable?

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 25/11/16 09:44, Noob wrote:
>> On 24/11/2016 15:59, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> 
>>> Francois Grieu writes:
>>>
>>>> Assume this code, under C99 or later
>>>>
>>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>>> uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); }
>>>
>>> The cast is pointless.  The returned value is always converted to the
>>> return type of the function.
>>>
>>>> Is the return value of foo well defined for any uint32_t input?
>>>
>>> No, for the reasons you go on to explain
>>>
>>>> In particular: when int is 64-bit, x gets promoted to int and becomes
>>>> signed, and x*x can overflow the range of int; e.g. for
>>>> x=(uint32_t)(-1);
>>>> So, what chapter and verse (if any) saves the day?
>>>
>>>   uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return 1u * x * x; }
>> 
>> The standard states: "The rank of any unsigned integer type shall
>> equal the rank of the corresponding signed integer type, if any."
>> 
>> So 'int' and 'unsigned int' have the same "rank", whatever their
>> actual size?

Yup.

>> Integer promotion is applied to "an object or expression with an
>> integer type whose integer conversion rank is less than or equal
>> to the rank of int and unsigned int. If an int can represent all
>> values of the original type, the value is converted to an int;
>> otherwise, it is converted to an unsigned int."

It's not 100% clear if this is supposed to apply to unsigned int when
int has the same positive range.  I'm not sure but I lean towards not.
Why mention unsigned int if the objects in question were not supposed to
exclude them?  Implementations where unsigned promotes to int would be
pathological in some senses.

>> Assuming a perverse implementation where
>> - int is 64 bits
>> - unsigned int is 32 bits
>> (Is that allowed?)
>
> That is not allowed, so there is no problem :-)

Right, but int and unsigned int might have the same range of positive
values.  So (putting uint32_t aside for the for the moment), 1u would
promote to int in some interpretations of the paragraph Noob quoted.  In
effect, you could not do unsigned arithmetic without forcing the use of
some type with higher conversion rank than int.

<snip>

As suggested here:

>> One would have to write 1ull * x * x;

-- 
Ben.

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

Thread

Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@free.fr> - 2016-11-24 15:33 +0100
  Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-24 14:59 +0000
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Francois Grieu <fgrieu@free.fr> - 2016-11-24 18:34 +0100
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 14:03 -0800
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 09:50 +0100
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-25 09:44 +0100
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 11:14 +0100
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 11:12 +0000
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 10:50 -0800
            Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-25 12:12 -0800
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2016-11-25 21:45 +0000
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 13:58 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:37 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 12:01 +0000
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:39 -0800
                Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 09:12 -0800
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 22:54 +0000
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2016-11-25 22:01 +0000
            Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-25 23:22 +0000
              Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:22 -0800
    Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-01 10:16 -0800
      Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-01 11:06 -0800
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:40 -0800
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:28 +0100
        Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:13 -0800
          Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-10 10:41 -0800
  Re: Is uint32_t foo(uint32_t x) { return (uint32_t)(x*x); } portable? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 07:40 -0800

csiph-web