Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) |
| Date | 2012-02-14 06:48 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jhdhll$2dh$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <0.3ea307f9a62a254551d3.20120213220013GMT.87k43q5r82.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jhc8fr$6sk$1@news.albasani.net> <0.a4dc5cc322c68708dbd6.20120214004648GMT.87ehty44xz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jhcdk8$4h8$1@news.albasani.net> <lesjj7tal8cu07kkq93068f4vl2a5ntr13@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 02/14/2012 01:24 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:31:48 -0700, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> double d;
>> int i, j, k;
>>
>> for(i=0; i<100000000; i++)
>> {
>> j=rand()*rand()*i;
>> d=j;
>> d=d+1.0; //(1)
>> d=d-1.0; //(1)
>> k=d; //(2)
>> k=(d>=0?(int)(d+0.0001):(int)(d-0.0001)); //(2)
>> if(j!=k)
>> printf("%d %d\n", j, k);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> 1: if these lines are commented out, then the printf is never called,
>> but if uncommented (along with using different constant values), then I
>> start seeing messages (with it off-by-one, rounded towards 0).
That's to be expected. As i gets larger, for some of the values that can
be returned by rand(),
>>
>> 2: if I switch to the second form, which makes the fudging, then the
>> messages disappear (they still appear with the first form).
>>
>> so, it would seem to be mostly an issue in this case of whether or not
>> one does any arithmetic on the values (not sure whether or not this
>> still counts). CPU is an "AMD Athlon II X4 630".
>>
>> or, at least, this is what I am seeing here...
...
> The explanation for this, at least, seems simple. You're overflowing
> the dynamic range of a double. 32767*32767*100000000 needs a bit more
> than 56 bits to represent exactly.
That number is 32767*32767*5^8 * 2^8. Representing the first part
exactly only requires 48 bits, and the 2^8 just shifts the exponent.
However, the actual maximum value that d can have is
32767*32767*99999999, and that does require 56 bits to represent exactly.
> ... That doesn't fit in a double
> (assuming an IEEE double, of course). Nor do the results of that
> number plus or minus 1.0. ...
That part is true, even when 'i' has a large power of 2 among it's factors.
There's no mystery about these results anymore - he's looking at integer
values that are too large for N and N+1 to both be exactly representable.
--
James Kuyper
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Alex Vinokur <alex.vinokur@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:41 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-02-13 12:49 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Alex Vinokur <alex.vinokur@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:59 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-02-13 13:07 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 04:54 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Alex Vinokur <alex.vinokur@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 05:00 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-13 13:27 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Goran <goran.pusic@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 07:14 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-13 08:14 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-13 08:17 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-13 21:52 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 17:08 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-13 20:44 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-13 13:16 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 11:18 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-13 15:18 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 16:26 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-13 16:05 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 17:13 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-13 23:35 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 17:25 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 01:45 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 18:55 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-02-14 11:51 +0900
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 03:13 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 20:39 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-02-14 13:25 +0900
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 23:22 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-14 02:56 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 09:13 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-14 11:16 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 12:27 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-13 23:04 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-02-14 14:00 +0900
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-14 00:45 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-14 14:22 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-14 13:06 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 12:40 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 23:05 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-02-14 14:01 +0900
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-14 03:01 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2012-02-14 12:53 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-14 14:39 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-14 20:45 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-14 22:57 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-14 15:38 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-15 00:22 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-15 00:39 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-15 08:00 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-13 22:00 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 17:04 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-02-13 16:15 -0800
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 00:46 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 18:31 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 18:41 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 02:33 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 20:20 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 03:26 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 20:49 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-14 00:24 -0600
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-13 23:42 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-14 06:48 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-02-14 13:51 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 08:42 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-14 19:58 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-14 14:27 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-14 09:10 -0700
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-02-14 20:02 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-13 15:22 +0100
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2012-02-13 18:49 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-13 13:55 -0500
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-02-13 19:14 +0000
Re: C/C++ pitfalls related to 64-bits (unsigned long & double) Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-02-13 12:14 -0800
csiph-web