Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism?

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism?
Date	2017-04-28 10:19 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<odutnq$8kf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<11ea6682-cdee-4513-97c2-6c90b585716a@googlegroups.com> <87o9vi6rql.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <26aee5e9-ed2f-4c6e-af68-b85418c7e641@googlegroups.com> <ln1ssdmrc5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <6175390e-9ea6-45f9-bf8c-d87525c332da@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/04/17 05:20, joel.rees@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 7:21:14 AM UTC+9, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> joel rees@somewhere writes: [...]
>>> We have this coddling of brain-damaged CPUs when a left-shift on
>>> a negative operand is specified on sign-magnitude architectures
>>> or something, but we have this assurance that casting a -1 to an
>>> unsigned fills the thing with ones.
>>> 
>>> (I know calling it brain-damaged is too extreme, but ...)
>> 
>> I suggest you might benefit from describing these things in less 
>> inflammatory terms.
> 
> Not sure how.
> 
>> The behavor of left-shifting a negative value is undefined.
> 
> Without context, I suppose it is.

The context here is C programming unless explicitly stated otherwise,
and in that context left-shifting a negative value is undefined.

> 
> But mapping it to a logical shift left on the CPU, whatever the CPU
> gives for that, seems reasonable to me.

Logical shifts work naturally on /unsigned/ types.

> 
> Far more reasonable than assuming that casting a minus one to an
> unsigned type should always result in a bit mask of the type's
> width.

That is perfectly reasonable for modulo arithmetic on unsigned types.

There are a variety of ways one could define arithmetic and overflow for
signed and unsigned types.  Different methods have their advantages and
disadvantages, and different programming languages pick different methods.

In C, unsigned arithmetic is always modulo, and so overflows wrap
around.  That fits well with most hardware, and has a lot of practical
benefits.  But it also means that "u < u + 1" might be false, which is
counter-intuitive for normal mathematics.  You can take an unsigned
number, keep adding to it, and suddenly end up with nothing.

Signed arithmetic, on the other hand, never overflows in C.  It is
undefined behaviour - as far as the language is concerned, it can't
happen.  That means "x < x + 1" is /always/ true as far as C is
concerned, for signed type x.  This sort of thing makes mathematical
sense, and gives compilers freedom to re-arrange and optimise code in a
way that makes sense to programmers.  You may think "I don't write
conditionals like that" - but it can be surprising how often simple
mathematical manipulation of expressions are valid when overflow cannot
happen, but invalid in two's complement wraparound signed arithmetic.
(An example is "(x * 2) / 2" -> "x".)

Certain other behaviour, such as the conversion of an unsigned integer
to a signed integer when the value won't fit, are left as implementation
defined behaviour - basically, one should expect the most "natural"
behaviour on the hardware, and this should be documented by the
compiler.  In many cases, this conversion will be modulo wraparound -
but compilers /may/ do something else, if that operation would be expensive.

Would it be nice to have different behaviour of C integers?  Perhaps -
it is certainly a valid viewpoint.  Personally, I am happy with the way
they work in most cases, but there are a few corner cases that I don't
like.  I would prefer automatic promotions of unsigned char and unsigned
short to be to unsigned int, rather than signed int.  I would like
certain implementation-defined behaviour, such as the conversion to a
signed integer mentioned above, to be "conditionally defined behaviour"
- if the hardware uses two's complement signed integers, then such
conversions should be defined as modulo wraparound, otherwise they can
be implementation dependent.

But whatever you think about the rules, however you think they could be
different, however you imagine they /were/ different in some old version
of C or some old compilers - the rules are there, they are clear and
consistent, and there should not be a problem learning them and using them.

> 
>> This is specified in N1570 6.5.7p4.
>> 
>> (I don't recall that I've ever felt the need to left-shift a
>> negative integer.)
> 
> Have you even left-shifted an unsigned char expecting specifically
> for the upper bits to disappear, instead of pulling the unsigned char
> into and unsigned long to do the shift and then masking the upper
> bits back out with a cast back to unsigned char?

Unsigned chars promote to int (unless they are already the same size as
int, in which case they work like unsigned int).  An int can always
represent all the values of the unsigned char as positive values, and
left shifting of up to 7 bits is /always/ going to work correctly.
Converting back to an unsigned char will always mask off any extra bits.
 So if you have code like:

	unsigned char uc = ...;
	int n = ...;
	uc = uc << n;

Then the code will work as expected unless "n" shifts out /all/ the bits
in the unsigned char (in which case it might work, and might not).

> 
> And hoping the compiler (which often misses such optimizations) will
> optimize out your excessive code on CPUs that will allocate a double
> short register to do the long shift?

Most compilers will handle code like the above quite well.

<snip>

> If I had the time, I'd go read it. I'm sure they thought they had a
> good reason.
> 
> I'll still push for splitting the standard if anyone is willing to
> discuss it.

You want to split and change the standard - but you haven't read it or
the reasoning behind it?  I'd study the rationale and the latest
standard first, before trying to split it.  (I don't think a rationale
for C11 has been published.)

> Embedded has drastically different needs than desktop or server, and
> I even think desktop and server might be well served by fine-tuning
> the standard to the target.

I work with embedded programming all the time - I almost never use C on
desktops or servers (usually I use Python for such work).  And the more
I learn about the subtleties of C - often from this group - the more I
realise that there is very, very little I would want to change in this
sort of area.  There are a few points in the standard that would prefer
to be modified.  There are a number of gcc extensions or
implementation-defined behaviours that I think are of significant
benefit to my coding - and would therefore be useful in all compilers.
There are a few (not many) points in the standard that I think could be
simplified by assuming the target is a "normal" modern processor.  There
are a few changes or additions I would like in the standard library.
And there are more than a few places where the standard could benefit
from clearer language or better examples.

But the fundamentals - including the way signed and unsigned work, and
the undefined behaviours, I am happy with.

> 
> -- Joel Rees
> 
> "Is the standard made for man? Or is man made for the standard?"
> 
> "Grasshopper. Go bother some other guru for a while."
>

Thread

Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:13 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 03:41 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-27 11:59 +0100
    Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 14:35 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 15:13 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:58 +0200
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 16:44 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:04 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 08:53 +0200
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:23 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-28 18:05 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 09:22 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 12:24 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 00:03 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 16:37 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:09 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 17:34 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 01:43 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-29 02:04 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:46 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-30 12:05 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:33 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 17:58 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 09:13 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 12:55 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 09:17 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-30 20:35 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:39 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-01 16:21 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 06:35 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-02 16:29 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 20:58 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:43 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 14:09 +0100
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 14:23 +0000
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 16:17 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-28 15:55 +0000
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 19:11 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 11:23 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 11:31 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 12:01 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 12:47 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:20 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-29 15:22 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 16:52 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-29 15:18 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-04-29 14:25 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-04-29 08:05 -0400
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 13:34 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 05:55 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:11 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-29 15:24 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 14:57 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 12:17 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-03 16:36 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 11:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-03 21:40 +0200
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 23:46 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:55 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:20 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 20:26 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:19 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:57 -0400
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 17:06 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:38 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:51 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-29 12:43 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:02 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:25 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 09:48 -0400
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 08:07 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 18:56 +0200
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-28 11:30 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-28 08:35 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 00:54 +0200
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-27 21:05 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-28 10:58 +0200
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-28 10:50 +0100
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-28 10:01 -0400
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:06 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-28 23:57 +0100
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 12:28 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 12:41 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-30 21:46 +0100
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 05:41 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-01 13:57 +0100
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:30 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 16:13 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 09:12 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 18:15 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 11:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 21:39 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 13:53 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 14:10 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-02 22:36 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-02 15:27 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 00:45 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-03 11:57 +0100
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-03 13:34 -0500
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-03 12:05 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 02:58 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:26 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 05:54 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:49 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 06:51 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 09:03 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-02 14:47 -0700
                Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 17:45 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:42 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 23:57 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 04:32 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 18:20 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 23:12 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 19:54 -0700
              Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 21:21 -0700
  Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-27 10:46 -0400
    Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 08:37 -0700
      Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 09:38 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-27 10:17 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-27 12:10 -0700
        Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 13:50 -0700
          Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-30 14:11 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 14:44 -0700
            Re: Is this code considered to transgress the signed overflow purism? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-30 22:05 -0700

csiph-web