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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #2710

Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Performance of signed vs unsigned types
Date 2011-04-20 15:01 -0700
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lnoc404m6p.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104201619090.22217@bowman> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104201705550.22217@bowman> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104201718400.22217@bowman> <ln1v0w68ov.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1104202130210.22217@bowman>

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> writes:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Thomas Scrace <tom@scrace.org> writes:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Thomas Scrace wrote:
>>>>  By comparison, with an unsigned long it took just a few seconds to
>>>> max out at 9223372036854775807.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I meant 18446744073709551615.
>>
>> (That's 2**64-1.)
>>
>> That's implausible; there must be something else going on.
>>
>> If your computer can increment a 64-bit long in 1 nanosecond
>> (1 GHz), it would take it over 500 years to iterate from 0
>> to 18446744073709551615.  You can tweak the numbers slightly
>> (maybe your computer is faster than that, maybe it can do multiple
>> increments per clock cycle, etc.), but not enough to reduce the
>> time to a few seconds.
>>
>> You said you added a print statement to the loop, and it took about
>> a minute to count to 4 million.  (BTW, this would be a lot easier if
>> you had kept that context in your followup.)  The print statement is
>> going to take orders of magnitude longer than a simple increment;
>> a minute to generate 4 million lines of output is plausible.
>> The overhead of formatting the output string is going to be
>> substantial, and even that is likely to be swamped by the time it
>> takes to physically generate the output.
>>
>> My best guess is that you're actually iterating over a 32-bit range.
>> That takes about 6 seconds on my system (with no ouput in the loop).
>> (A sufficiently clever compiler might also optimize away the loop,
>> but then it would take no perceptible time, not "just a few seconds".)
>>
>
> I posted the relevant function in a previous post, but I will reproduce it here:
>
>> signed long slmax()
>> {
>>         signed long s;
>>         signed long temp;
>>         for (s = 0, temp = -1; s > temp; ++s, ++temp) {
>>                 ;
>>         }
>>         return temp;
>> }
>
> The function is the same for the unsigned longs, except with the types of the 
> two counter variables changed to unsigned. Scott Fluhrer pointed out that the 
> explanation for the supernaturally fast enumeration of the 64bit longs was in 
> the
>
> temp = -1
>
> assignment.  Because temp is an unsigned variable in the unsigned functions this 
> actually ended up taking the value of ULONG_MAX, and the loop immediately 
> terminated. The reason I did not realise the error was that I was looking for it 
> to return ULONG_MAX; I just thought it was doing it in a different fashion.
>
> So, mystery solved! It's amazing how these apparently simple K&R exercises can 
> lead to learning a lot more about the language than you initially expect.

I'm glad you solved the mystery, but for future reference:

Yes, you posted the function, but you didn't post a complete program,
nor did you post the actual function that exhibited the problem.  A
description of your actual code, even if it's accurate, isn't nearly as
useful as an exact copy (as in copy-and-paste) of your code.  We can't
guess what details you've left out, either accidentally or because you
assumed they were unimportant.

Here's the kind of thing I was asking for:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>

unsigned long slmax(void)
{
        unsigned long s;
        unsigned long temp;
        for (s = 0, temp = -1; s > temp; ++s, ++temp) {
                ;
        }
        return temp;
}


int main(void)
{
    unsigned long result;

    printf("ULONG_MAX = %lu\n", ULONG_MAX);
    printf("Calling slmax()\n");
    result = slmax();
    printf("After slmax()\n");
    return 0;
}

Output:
ULONG_MAX = 4294967295
Calling slmax()
After slmax()

And you told us this took "a few seconds" to run.  On my system, the
time it takes to run is literally too short to measure (well, to measure
conveniently).  That's a *huge* difference, and it led me to a
completely icorrect conclusion.

Recommended reading:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>.

Again, I'm glad you solved the problem, but I hope this advice will be
useful next time you want to ask a question here.  And please don't
think I'm picking on you (I'm not) or beating a dead horse (well, I
probably am).

-- 
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

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