By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
 446,227 Members | 1,373 Online
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,227 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# Range of short int?

 P: n/a In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? Dec 24 '05 #1
Share this Question
12 Replies

 P: n/a al******************@hotmail.com wrote: In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? The most negative value for a signed short int is at least -32767, on a 2's complement machine this will be -32768. Robert Gamble Dec 24 '05 #2

 P: n/a wrote in message news:11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com... My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. 0x8001 = -32767 0x8000 = -32768 I remember this from years ago, but as 2's complement issue, not a C one. At that time it was being referred to (at least in the circles I occupied) as the "negative zero" issue. I never saw the problem myself, but it caused a big flap amongst the guys doing the microcode for the math unit. I seem to recall even understanding why it was an issue to them, though I've forgotten from this distance in time. - Bill Dec 24 '05 #3

 P: n/a al******************@hotmail.com wrote: In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? Neither. It depends on how the system was designed. The actual values, for your system, are described in -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson More details at: Dec 24 '05 #4

 P: n/a Robert Gamble wrote: al******************@hotmail.com wrote: In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? The most negative value for a signed short int is at least -32767, on a 2's complement machine this will be -32768. On a 2's complement machine *using 16 bits*, that will be -32768, the magnitude could be larger if more bits are used in the representation. Robert Gamble Dec 24 '05 #5

 P: n/a al******************@hotmail.com writes: In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. The minimum guaranteed range of short is -32767 .. +32767. On a two's-complement system (i.e., almost all modern systems), a 16-bit signed type is capable of representing an additional negative value, -32768. For absolute portability, you shouldn't assume that short can represent -32768. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Dec 24 '05 #6

 P: n/a wrote In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? The first. If you want to treat a short as an abstract integer, rather than a series of bits, the obvious reason is so that you are not tied to two's complement representation. Therefore you need to follow the standard, which guarantees the range -32767 to + 32767 only. (-32768 might be used as a trap representation, for example, or the machine might be one's complement, or use a weird and wonderful system not yet devised). Dec 24 '05 #7

 P: n/a Robert Gamble wrote: al******************@hotmail.com wrote: In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? The most negative value for a signed short int is at least -32767, on a 2's complement machine this will be -32768. According to N1124 for a 2s complement machine sign bit set and all other bits 0 is allowed to be a trap representation, so it could still be -32767. Admittedly I'm not aware of any systems that do this. -- Flash Gordon Living in interesting times. Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it. Dec 24 '05 #8

 P: n/a "Malcolm" writes: [...] If you want to treat a short as an abstract integer, rather than a series of bits, the obvious reason is so that you are not tied to two's complement representation. Therefore you need to follow the standard, which guarantees the range -32767 to + 32767 only. (-32768 might be used as a trap representation, for example, or the machine might be one's complement, or use a weird and wonderful system not yet devised). C99 6.2.6.2 limits the possibilites to two's complement, ones' complement, and sign and magnitude. (Yes, the placement of the apostrophes is correct.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Dec 24 '05 #9

 P: n/a al******************@hotmail.com a écrit : In my copy of "Algorithms in C" by R. Sedgewick (3rd edition, January 1999 reprint), this is on pages 71-72: "we think of a short int as an object that can take on values between -32768 and 32767, instead of as a 16-bit object" My understanding of C is that the negative number should be -32767. The errata list on his website shows that it was -32767 and was changed to -32768 for subsequent printings. Which is correct? -32767 is correct from the C language definition point of view. It is the guaranteed minimum value for a [short ]int. -32768 could be a value of INT_MIN or SHRT_MIN on a platform with negatives coded with 2-complement. It's a plateform question. -- A+ Emmanuel Delahaye Dec 26 '05 #10

 P: n/a Keith Thompson writes: "Malcolm" writes: [...] If you want to treat a short as an abstract integer, rather than a series of bits, the obvious reason is so that you are not tied to two's complement representation. Therefore you need to follow the standard, which guarantees the range -32767 to + 32767 only. (-32768 might be used as a trap representation, for example, or the machine might be one's complement, or use a weird and wonderful system not yet devised). C99 6.2.6.2 limits the possibilites to two's complement, ones' complement, and sign and magnitude. (Yes, the placement of the apostrophes is correct.) Just curious - do you have any idea why the writing of (only) one of these terms changed between C99 and n1124? Surely it would be better if the two terms were written consistently; anyone have any idea why they aren't? Dec 28 '05 #11

 P: n/a Tim Rentsch wrote: Keith Thompson writes:"Malcolm" writes:[...]If you want to treat a short as an abstract integer, rather than a series ofbits, the obvious reason is so that you are not tied to two's complementrepresentation.Therefore you need to follow the standard, which guarantees the range -32767to + 32767 only. (-32768 might be used as a trap representation, forexample, or the machine might be one's complement, or use a weird andwonderful system not yet devised).C99 6.2.6.2 limits the possibilites to two's complement, ones'complement, and sign and magnitude. (Yes, the placement of theapostrophes is correct.) Just curious - do you have any idea why the writing of (only) one of these terms changed between C99 and n1124? Surely it would be better if the two terms were written consistently; anyone have any idea why they aren't? Detail-oriented readers and copy editors should notice the position of the apostrophe in terms like "two's complement" and "ones' complement": A two's complement number is complemented with respect to a single power of 2, while a ones' complement number is complemented with respect to a long sequence of 1s. Indeed, there is also a "twos' complement notation," which has radix 3 and complementation with respect to (2...22)_3. -- D.E. Knuth, "The Art of Computer Programming, Volume II: Seminumerical Algorithms" (third edition) section 4.5. -- Eric Sosman es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid Dec 28 '05 #12

 P: n/a Tim Rentsch wrote [re. ones' and two's complement] Just curious - do you have any idea why the writing of (only) one of these terms changed between C99 and n1124? Surely it would be better if the two terms were written consistently; anyone have any idea why they aren't? -Larry Jones I'll be a hulking, surly teen-ager before you know it!! -- Calvin Jan 1 '06 #13

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.