Tricky double operations

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

I just ran across this code (assume that buf is valid and large
enough to hold all characters printed to it):

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
char *cp;

if( d == (int)d ) { /* 1 */
sprintf( buf, "%d", (int)d ); /* 2 */
}
else { /* 3 */
sprintf( buf, "%.3lf", d );
cp=buf+strlen( buf );
while( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '0' ) {
*(--cp)=0;
}
if( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '.' ) {
cp[-1]=0;
}
}
return buf;
}

1. Obviously this cast is unsafe - is it unsafe even if 0 < d < INT_MAX?
The code wants to verify that d has no decimal part, apparently.
Is floor(d) == ceil(d) an acceptable alternative? Will it work?

2. Presumably this line should be

printf( buf, "%.0lf", d );

Is that correct?

3. As near as I can make out, this attempts to ensure that there are
no trailing 0's printed, and that there is not a bare decimal
point either. Is there a better way to do that?

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Eric Sosman]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

I just ran across this code (assume that buf is valid and large
enough to hold all characters printed to it):

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
char *cp;

if( d == (int)d ) { /* 1 */
sprintf( buf, "%d", (int)d ); /* 2 */
}
else { /* 3 */
sprintf( buf, "%.3lf", d );
cp=buf+strlen( buf );
while( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '0' ) {
*(--cp)=0;
}
if( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '.' ) {
cp[-1]=0;
}
}
return buf;
}

1. Obviously this cast is unsafe - is it unsafe even if 0 < d < INT_MAX?
The code wants to verify that d has no decimal part, apparently.
Is floor(d) == ceil(d) an acceptable alternative? Will it work?
The cast is safe if INT_MIN-1 < d < INT_MAX+1, and will
"work" as intended for that range. The floor/ceil test looks
all right, and maybe there's something you could do with modf().
2. Presumably this line should be

printf( buf, "%.0lf", d );

Is that correct?
Yes, perhaps, but probably not. The "corrected" version
assumes that `buf' already contains something like "%s%g" --
either that, or the wrong function is being called. Note, too,
that the "l" length modifier has no effect on the "%f" specifier.
3. As near as I can make out, this attempts to ensure that there are
no trailing 0's printed, and that there is not a bare decimal
point either. Is there a better way to do that?

Sure: you can get rid of the strlen() call by making use of
the value returned by sprintf(). But beyond that, I'm not so
sure that "123498487123123123198398734" is all that great an
improvement over "123498487123123123198398734.123" ... What's
the wider context? Making axis labels for a graph, perhaps?

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid

[Keith Thompson]

Eric Sosman <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid> writes:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

I just ran across this code (assume that buf is valid and large
enough to hold all characters printed to it):
const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
char *cp;
if( d == (int)d ) { /* 1 */
sprintf( buf, "%d", (int)d ); /* 2 */
} [snip] 2. Presumably this line should be
printf( buf, "%.0lf", d );
Is that correct?

Yes, perhaps, but probably not. The "corrected" version
assumes that `buf' already contains something like "%s%g" --
either that, or the wrong function is being called. Note, too,
that the "l" length modifier has no effect on the "%f" specifier.

Actually, I think it merely assumes that "sprintf" is spelled without
a leading 's'.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> spoke thus:

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
char *cp; if( d == (int)d ) { /* 1 */
sprintf( buf, "%d", (int)d ); /* 2 */
}
else { /* 3 */
sprintf( buf, "%.3lf", d );
cp=buf+strlen( buf );
while( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '0' ) {
*(--cp)=0;
}
if( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '.' ) {
cp[-1]=0;
}
}
return buf;
}

Is the following code a legitemate re-implementation of the function?

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
unsigned int real_d, pos;
modf( d*1000, &d );
real_d=(unsigned int)d; /* assume d is in range */
pos=sprintf( buf, "%u", real_d/1000 );
if( real_d%1000 ) {
sprintf( buf+pos, ".%u", real_acc%1000 );
}
}

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Barry Schwarz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:50:53 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> spoke thus:

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
char *cp;

if( d == (int)d ) { /* 1 */
sprintf( buf, "%d", (int)d ); /* 2 */
}
else { /* 3 */
sprintf( buf, "%.3lf", d );
cp=buf+strlen( buf );
while( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '0' ) {
*(--cp)=0;
}
if( cp > buf && cp[-1] == '.' ) {
cp[-1]=0;
}
}
return buf;
}

Is the following code a legitemate re-implementation of the function?

const char *foo( double d, char *buf )
{
unsigned int real_d, pos;
modf( d*1000, &d );
real_d=(unsigned int)d; /* assume d is in range */
pos=sprintf( buf, "%u", real_d/1000 );
if( real_d%1000 ) {
sprintf( buf+pos, ".%u", real_acc%1000 );
}
}

What is real_acc??
<<Remove the del for email>>

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Barry Schwarz <sc******@deloz.net> spoke thus:

What is real_acc??

A mistake (it should be real_d).

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.