469,917 Members | 1,766 Online

Trap representations for unsigned integers

If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1

That is, I'm asking wheter it equals 0 whenever uMyInt_t has trap
representations, equals a nonzero value whenever uMyInt_t has no
trap representation, and never triggers undefined behaviour.

--
#include <stdio.h>
char s[]="\16Jsa ukenethr ,cto haCr\n";int main(void){*s*=5;*
s%=23;putchar(s[s]);return*s-14?main():!putchar(9[s+*s]);}
Apr 21 '07 #1
17 1308 Army1987 wrote:
If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1
No. If uMyInt_t has padding bits, you will right-shift by a number
greater than (or equal to) the number of value bits, and for that the
behaviour is undefined.

Apr 21 '07 #2
Army1987 wrote:
If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1

That is, I'm asking wheter it equals 0 whenever uMyInt_t has trap
representations, equals a nonzero value whenever uMyInt_t has no
trap representation, and never triggers undefined behaviour.
I think there are at least two problems with this test.
First, if uMyInt_t has padding bits the shift count may be
too large and lead to undefined behavior ("may" because of
possible promotion to int or unsigned int). Second, the
presence of padding bits does not imply the existence of trap
representations: the extra bits may just be along for the ride.

The best way to detect padding bits may be to count the
number of 1's in (uMyInt_t)-1, or to compare the numeric value
of (uMyInt_t)-1 to the "expected" quantity. The first test is
easy at run time but difficult or impossible at preprocessing
time; the second has problems, too (what type should you use
to form the expected value?). I can think of no reliable way
to determine whether trap representations exist; if you find
there are no padding bits you can deduce that there are no
traps, but that's as far as I think you can get.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid
Apr 21 '07 #3
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
Army1987 wrote:
>If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1

No. If uMyInt_t has padding bits, you will right-shift by a number
greater than (or equal to) the number of value bits, and for that the
behaviour is undefined.
Is

destruct. Get a real computer."), exit(1)),
/* On the DeathStation 9000 exit(1) activates self-destruction */
ceil(log2((uMyInt_t)(-1))) >= CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t) )

any better?
Apr 21 '07 #4
Army1987 wrote:
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
Army1987 wrote:
If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1
No. If uMyInt_t has padding bits, you will right-shift by a number
greater than (or equal to) the number of value bits, and for that the
behaviour is undefined.

Is

destruct. Get a real computer."), exit(1)),
/* On the DeathStation 9000 exit(1) activates self-destruction */
ceil(log2((uMyInt_t)(-1))) >= CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t) )

any better?
On the DS9K, DBL_MAX would be large enough, but CHAR_BIT *
sizeof(uMuInt_t) would give the wrong result because SIZE_MAX is too
small. :)

integer constant expression, so at this point there's no downside to
just writing a function.

Apr 21 '07 #5
"Eric Sosman" <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalidha scritto nel messaggio
news:Cc******************************@comcast.com. ..
Army1987 wrote:
>If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1

That is, I'm asking wheter it equals 0 whenever uMyInt_t has trap
representations, equals a nonzero value whenever uMyInt_t has no
trap representation, and never triggers undefined behaviour.
[snip] Second, the
presence of padding bits does not imply the existence of trap
representations: the extra bits may just be along for the ride.
So I'll replace "necessary and sufficient condition" with
"sufficient condition".

What I was thinking of is something like:

#include <string.h>
unsigned char randchar();
/* Get a random integer from 0 to UCHAR_MAX */

unsigned long longrand()
{
unsigned long result;
if (NO_TRAP(unsigned long)) {
int i;
unsigned char res[sizeof result];
for (i=0; i<sizeof result; i++)
res[i] = randchar();
memcpy(&result, res, sizeof result);
} else {
/* invent something else */
}
return result;
}

I would still be able to use the algorithm with the right result (a
uniformly distributed random integer from 0 to UINT_MAX) if there
are padding bits but they are ignored.
Apr 21 '07 #6
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
Army1987 wrote:
>Is

destruct. Get a real computer."), exit(1)),
/* On the DeathStation 9000 exit(1) activates self-destruction */
ceil(log2((uMyInt_t)(-1))) >= CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t) )

any better?

On the DS9K, DBL_MAX would be large enough, but CHAR_BIT *
sizeof(uMuInt_t) would give the wrong result because SIZE_MAX is too
small. :)
On C99 I might use (uintmax_t)CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)...

integer constant expression, so at this point there's no downside to
just writing a function.
I was thinking of using a macro, so I could write
to do that with a function.
Apr 21 '07 #7
Army1987 wrote:
"Eric Sosman" <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalidha scritto nel messaggio
news:Cc******************************@comcast.com. ..
Army1987 wrote:
If uMyInt_t is an unsigned integral type, is the following a
necessary and sufficient condition that uMyInt_t has no trap
representation?

(uMyInt_t)(-1) >CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)-1

That is, I'm asking wheter it equals 0 whenever uMyInt_t has trap
representations, equals a nonzero value whenever uMyInt_t has no
trap representation, and never triggers undefined behaviour.

[snip] Second, the
presence of padding bits does not imply the existence of trap
representations: the extra bits may just be along for the ride.

So I'll replace "necessary and sufficient condition" with
"sufficient condition".

What I was thinking of is something like:

#include <string.h>
unsigned char randchar();
/* Get a random integer from 0 to UCHAR_MAX */

unsigned long longrand()
{
unsigned long result;
if (NO_TRAP(unsigned long)) {
int i;
unsigned char res[sizeof result];
for (i=0; i<sizeof result; i++)
res[i] = randchar();
memcpy(&result, res, sizeof result);
} else {
/* invent something else */
}
return result;
}

I would still be able to use the algorithm with the right result (a
uniformly distributed random integer from 0 to UINT_MAX) if there
are padding bits but they are ignored.
Why not

unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
size_t i;
for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.

Apr 21 '07 #8
Army1987 wrote:
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
Army1987 wrote:
Is

destruct. Get a real computer."), exit(1)),
/* On the DeathStation 9000 exit(1) activates self-destruction */
ceil(log2((uMyInt_t)(-1))) >= CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t) )

any better?
On the DS9K, DBL_MAX would be large enough, but CHAR_BIT *
sizeof(uMuInt_t) would give the wrong result because SIZE_MAX is too
small. :)
On C99 I might use (uintmax_t)CHAR_BIT*sizeof(uMyInt_t)...
And on C90, you can use a cast to unsigned long.
integer constant expression, so at this point there's no downside to
just writing a function.

I was thinking of using a macro, so I could write
to do that with a function.
You could do

#define NO_PADDING(type) (count_bits((type) -1) == sizeof(type))

where count_bits accepts an unsigned long / uintmax_t.

Apr 21 '07 #9
Harald van DÄ³k wrote:
You could do

#define NO_PADDING(type) (count_bits((type) -1) == sizeof(type))
.... == sizeof(type) * CHAR_BIT

Apr 21 '07 #10
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
Why not

unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
size_t i;
for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.
I hadn't thought of that before... (Mathematically x << y << z << t
is equivalent to x << (y+z+t), but I hadn't thought to the fact
that the former might be valid C even when the latter may be UB.)
Thanks.
Apr 21 '07 #11
Harald van DÄ³k <true...@gmail.comwrote:
unsigned char randchar();

unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
Â* Â* size_t i;
Â* Â* for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
Â* Â* Â* Â* result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.
True, but it may call randchar() more times than needed
on a hypothetical implementation where there are LOTS

unsigned long m = -1, result = randchar();
while ((m = m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1) != 0)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();

--
Peter

Apr 23 '07 #12

"Peter Nilsson" <ai***@acay.com.auha scritto nel messaggio
>Harald van D?k <true...@gmail.comwrote:
unsigned char randchar();

unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
size_t i;
for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.

True, but it may call randchar() more times than needed
on a hypothetical implementation where there are LOTS

unsigned long m = -1, result = randchar();
while ((m = m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1) != 0)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();

#include <limits.h>
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
#include <stdint.h>
#else
#define uintmax_t unsigned long
#endif

int count_bits(uintmax_t n)
{
int result = 1;
while (n/=2)
result++;
return result;
}

#define PADDING(t) ( CHAR_BIT*sizeof(t) - count_bits((t)(-1)) )

unsigned long longrand()
{
size_t i;
unsigned long result = 0;
size_t bytes = sizeof result - PADDING(unsigned long)/CHAR_BIT;
for (i=0; i<bytes; i++) {
result <<= CHAR_BIT;
result |= randchar();
}
return result;
}

(Did I get this right?)

Apr 24 '07 #13
"Army1987" <pl********@for.itwrites:
[...]
#include <limits.h>
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
#include <stdint.h>
#else
#define uintmax_t unsigned long
#endif
Why are you using #define rather than typedef?

The test for __STDC_VERSION__ *should* work, but unfortunately in real
life it may not be reliable. The __STDC_VERSION__ macro typically
tells you whether the compiler claims to support C99; this may or may
not tell you whether the <stdint.hheader exists. You can also get a
false negative, if the compiler doesn't claim to support C99, but it
supports unsigned long long as an extension. (Most such compilers
support a mode in which they conform to C90 without supporting
C99-specific features; the trick is to make sure the compiler is
actually invoked in such a mode.)

A conditional #include would be handy here:

#include <stdint.h>
#else
typedef unsigned long uintmax_t
#endif

but, alas, that doesn't exist.

Configuration systems like GNU autoconf can be helpful, but the
details are off-topic.

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Apr 24 '07 #14
Peter Nilsson wrote:
>
Harald van DÄ³k <true...@gmail.comwrote:
unsigned char randchar();
unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
Â Â size_t i;
Â Â for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
Â Â Â Â result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.

True, but it may call randchar() more times than needed
on a hypothetical implementation where there are LOTS

unsigned long m = -1, result = randchar();
while ((m = m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1) != 0)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
(result << CHAR_BIT) is undefined if sizeof(result) equals one.

--
pete
Apr 28 '07 #15
"pete" <pf*****@mindspring.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:46***********@mindspring.com...
Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>
Harald van DÄ³k <true...@gmail.comwrote:
unsigned char randchar();

unsigned long result = randchar();
if ((unsigned long) -1 UCHAR_MAX)
{
Â Â size_t i;
Â Â for (i = sizeof result - 1; i != 0; i--)
Â Â Â Â result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();
}

It works regardless of any padding bits.

True, but it may call randchar() more times than needed
on a hypothetical implementation where there are LOTS

unsigned long m = -1, result = randchar();
while ((m = m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1) != 0)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();

(result << CHAR_BIT) is undefined if sizeof(result) equals one.
if sizeof result is 1, then m is UCHAR_MAX, and
m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1 is 0.
So the body loop is never done then.
(I still wonder why uns_var >value_bits and uns_var << value_bits
are undefined. uns_var * 2**value_bits modulo 2**value_bits is 0,
and so is floor(uns_var / 2**value_bits). That's what
uns_var >value_bits-1 >1 and uns_var << value_bits-1 << 1 do.
Maybe I'll post that to comp.std.c.)
Apr 28 '07 #16
Army1987 wrote, On 28/04/07 10:28:

<snip>
(I still wonder why uns_var >value_bits and uns_var << value_bits
are undefined. uns_var * 2**value_bits modulo 2**value_bits is 0,
and so is floor(uns_var / 2**value_bits). That's what
uns_var >value_bits-1 >1 and uns_var << value_bits-1 << 1 do.
Maybe I'll post that to comp.std.c.)
The most probable reason for it being undefined is because the way
processors will treat it if you use assembler instructions to do it varies.
--
Flash Gordon
Apr 28 '07 #17
"Peter Nilsson" <a...@acay.com.au:
unsigned char randchar();
unsigned long m = -1, result = randchar();
while ((m = m >(CHAR_BIT - 1) >1) != 0)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) | randchar();

But less correct. ;-)
#include <limits.h>
<snip>
#define PADDING(t) ( CHAR_BIT*sizeof(t) - count_bits((t)(-1)))
Why are people so hung up on calculating the number of
unsigned long longrand()
{
size_t i;
unsigned long result = 0;
size_t bytes = sizeof result - PADDING(unsigned long)
/CHAR_BIT;
for (i=0; i<bytes; i++) {
result <<= CHAR_BIT;
result |= randchar();
}
return result;

}

(Did I get this right?)
No. If unsigned long is exactly 1 byte (ergo unpadded),
then the left shifting of result by CHAR_BIT bits invokes
undefined behaviour.

--
Peter

Apr 29 '07 #18

 96 posts views Thread by John Harrison | last post: by 8 posts views Thread by Rade | last post: by 49 posts views Thread by Neil Zanella | last post: by 11 posts views Thread by pemo | last post: by 10 posts views Thread by pemo | last post: by 24 posts views Thread by hammer1234 | last post: by 24 posts views Thread by Lane Straatman | last post: by 10 posts views Thread by Richard Tobin | last post: by 11 posts views Thread by vippstar | last post: by reply views Thread by eddparker01 | last post: by reply views Thread by lanliddd | last post: by reply views Thread by isladogs | last post: by reply views Thread by Trystan | last post: by reply views Thread by Trystan | last post: by 2 posts views Thread by Waqarahmed | last post: by reply views Thread by Salome Sato | last post: by 9 posts views Thread by anoble1 | last post: by 1 post views Thread by skydivetom | last post: by