utkarsh13 - 11 months ago 57

C Question

Code

`#include<stdio.h>`

#include<limits.h>

#include<float.h>

int f( double x, double y, double z){

return (x+y)+z == x+(y+z);

}

int ff( long long x, long long y, long long z){

return (x+y)+z == x+(y+z);

}

int main()

{

printf("%d\n",f(DBL_MAX,DBL_MAX,-DBL_MAX));

printf("%d\n",ff(LLONG_MAX,LLONG_MAX,-LLONG_MAX));

return 0;

}

Output

`0`

1

I am unable to understand why both functions work differently. What is happening here?

Answer

In the eyes of the C++ and the C standard, both of your variants (in the floating point case, potentially, see below) invoke Undefined Behavior because the results of the computation `x + y`

is not representable in the type the arithmetic is performed on.^{†} So both function may yield or even do anything.

However, many real world platforms offer additional guarantees or at least "reliable behavior" in case of UB.^{‡}

In your question, we can observe one case of the former and one case of the latter (sort of):

Considering `f`

, we note that many popular platforms implement floating point math as described in IEEE 754. Following the rules of that standard, we get for the LHS:

```
DBL_MAX + DBL_MAX = INF
```

and

```
INF - DBL_MAX = INF.
```

The RHS yields

```
DBL_MAX - DBL_MAX = 0
```

and

```
DBL_MAX + 0 = DBL_MAX
```

and thus LHS != RHS.

Moving on to `ff`

: Many platforms perform signed integer in twos complement. Twos complement's addition is assoziative, so the comparison will yield true as long as optimizer does not change it to something that contradicts twos complement rules.

The latter is entirely possible (for example see this discussion), so signed integer overflow is not even *really* reliable UB even if your platform is twos complement. However, it seems that it "was nice" in this case.

^{†}Note that this never applies to unsigned integer arithmetic. In C++, unsigned integers implement arithmetic modulo `2^NumBits`

where `NumBits`

is the number of bits of the type. In this arithmetic, every integer can be represented by picking a representative of its equivalence class in `[0, 2^NumBits - 1]`

. So this arithmetic can never overflow.

For those doubting that the floating point case is potential UB: N4140 5/4 [expr] says

If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined.

which is the case. The inf and NaN stuff is allowed, but not required in C++ and C floating point math. It is only required if `std::numeric_limits::is_iec559<T>`

is true for floating point type in question. (Or in C, if it defines `__STDC_IEC_559__`

. Otherwise, the Annex F stuff need not apply.) If either of the iec indicators guarantees us IEEE semantics, the behavior is well defined to do what I described above.

^{‡} With "reliable UB", I mean stuff that is UB as of the standard but always does the same thing on some given platform. For example, dereferencing a `nullptr`

always segfaults on all platforms I know.

Of course, relying on some additional guarantees limits your code to compilers which actually offers them, and relying on "reliable UB" even makes your code depend on specific compiler versions.

A popular example for the latter is gcc6 which broke code-bases such as Qt-5, Chromium and KDevelop by assuming that `this`

is never `nullptr`

. (They added a work-around to get the old behavior in this case, but your code would probably not be popular enough to get the gcc devs to add a switch to safe it.)

Source (Stackoverflow)