Is a negative integer summed with a greater unsigned integer promoted to unsigned int?
After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:
Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"
unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264
He said:
In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.
But if I do something like this:
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
As you can see -10
is not converted to unsigned int
. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer
to an unsigned integer
?
c++ unsigned-integer
add a comment |
After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:
Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"
unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264
He said:
In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.
But if I do something like this:
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
As you can see -10
is not converted to unsigned int
. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer
to an unsigned integer
?
c++ unsigned-integer
16
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.
– tkausl
16 hours ago
1
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
1
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago
add a comment |
After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:
Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"
unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264
He said:
In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.
But if I do something like this:
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
As you can see -10
is not converted to unsigned int
. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer
to an unsigned integer
?
c++ unsigned-integer
After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:
Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"
unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264
He said:
In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.
But if I do something like this:
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
As you can see -10
is not converted to unsigned int
. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer
to an unsigned integer
?
c++ unsigned-integer
c++ unsigned-integer
edited 4 hours ago
Lightness Races in Orbit
286k51464788
286k51464788
asked 16 hours ago
Alex24Alex24
1438
1438
16
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.
– tkausl
16 hours ago
1
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
1
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago
add a comment |
16
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.
– tkausl
16 hours ago
1
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
1
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago
16
16
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.– tkausl
16 hours ago
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.– tkausl
16 hours ago
1
1
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
1
1
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
-10
is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10
is the same as 4294967286
. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328
, but the max value is 4294967296
, so we have to take 4294967328
modulo 4294967296
and we get 32
.
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.
First,
i
is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value isstd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9
.When this value is summed with
u
the mathematical result would bestd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33
which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is32
.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
- Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
i
is in fact promoted to unsigned int
.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10)
so 42u + 4294967286u
and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
add a comment |
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byteINTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.
– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54190113%2fis-a-negative-integer-summed-with-a-greater-unsigned-integer-promoted-to-unsigne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
-10
is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10
is the same as 4294967286
. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328
, but the max value is 4294967296
, so we have to take 4294967328
modulo 4294967296
and we get 32
.
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
add a comment |
-10
is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10
is the same as 4294967286
. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328
, but the max value is 4294967296
, so we have to take 4294967328
modulo 4294967296
and we get 32
.
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
add a comment |
-10
is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10
is the same as 4294967286
. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328
, but the max value is 4294967296
, so we have to take 4294967328
modulo 4294967296
and we get 32
.
-10
is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10
is the same as 4294967286
. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328
, but the max value is 4294967296
, so we have to take 4294967328
modulo 4294967296
and we get 32
.
edited 16 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
NathanOliverNathanOliver
88.9k15120186
88.9k15120186
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
add a comment |
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
What I find interesting with modulo arithmetic is that by "convoluted" means, you get the same answer as regular arithmetic. This is one reason to justify wrapping behavior for overflow handling.
– Matthieu M.
5 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
@MatthieuM. The "convolution" only happens when you think of unsigned integers as numbers. The fact that adding a number from the equivalence class of 42 to a number from the equivalence class of -10 yields a value from the equivalence class of 32 is no less intuitive than the signed result IMO.
– Baum mit Augen
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.
First,
i
is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value isstd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9
.When this value is summed with
u
the mathematical result would bestd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33
which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is32
.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
- Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.
First,
i
is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value isstd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9
.When this value is summed with
u
the mathematical result would bestd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33
which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is32
.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
- Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.
First,
i
is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value isstd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9
.When this value is summed with
u
the mathematical result would bestd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33
which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is32
.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
- Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.
First,
i
is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value isstd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9
.When this value is summed with
u
the mathematical result would bestd::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33
which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is32
.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
- Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
bolovbolov
31k669129
31k669129
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
3
3
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
@BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
1
1
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.
– Garr Godfrey
16 hours ago
2
2
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
@GarrGodfrey I searched the standard and he is indeed correct. There is no overflow. And this is because unsigned integers do not represent natural numbers, but, as BaummitAugen said, they represent equivalence classes.
– bolov
15 hours ago
2
2
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
@curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.
– bolov
13 hours ago
2
2
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
@curiousguy "then why would anyone use them to represent a number of bytes, a number of objects in a container, etc.?" Several prominent members of a committee consider exactly that a historical mistake. channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/… 9:50, 42:40, 1:02:50
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
i
is in fact promoted to unsigned int
.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
i
is in fact promoted to unsigned int
.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
i
is in fact promoted to unsigned int
.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
i
is in fact promoted to unsigned int
.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
edited 42 mins ago
answered 16 hours ago
Baum mit AugenBaum mit Augen
40.4k12115147
40.4k12115147
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?
– JAD
7 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
@JAD No. It is correct as it stands.
– Baum mit Augen
5 hours ago
1
1
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
@JAD Quotient ring.
– user202729
5 hours ago
1
1
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@JAD That should be ℤ / 2ⁿ ℤ
– Eric Duminil
44 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
@EricDuminil True, thanks.
– Baum mit Augen
42 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10)
so 42u + 4294967286u
and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
add a comment |
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10)
so 42u + 4294967286u
and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
add a comment |
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10)
so 42u + 4294967286u
and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10)
so 42u + 4294967286u
and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
answered 16 hours ago
brunobruno
3,3741817
3,3741817
add a comment |
add a comment |
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byteINTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.
– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byteINTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.
– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.
answered 16 hours ago
Garr GodfreyGarr Godfrey
4,03711518
4,03711518
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byteINTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.
– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
add a comment |
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byteINTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.
– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byte
INTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
As a side note, on x86, most arithmetic operations set various bits in the flags register, which can then be used to e.g. perform branching. For example, addition would set CF (carry flag) to signify that unsigned "wrapping" has occurred, and/or OF (overflow flag) to signify that signed overflow has occurred, if you were to consider the operands signed. There was even a 1-byte
INTO
instruction which generated a software interrupt if OF was set, which could help with debugging, but unfortunately was not supported from higher level languages, and is no longer available in 64 bit mode.– Arne Vogel
4 hours ago
1
1
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
Technically speaking, nothing mandates 2's-complement representation. It's just that the modular-arithmetic conversion specified by the standard is exactly equivalent to using 2's-complement (as you'll see if you perform the conversion on a sign-magnitude or 1's-complement system, if it's correct).
– Toby Speight
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54190113%2fis-a-negative-integer-summed-with-a-greater-unsigned-integer-promoted-to-unsigne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
16
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int.
It is.– tkausl
16 hours ago
1
Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.
– DeiDei
16 hours ago
1
What result were you expecting instead of 32?
– Barmar
13 hours ago
Possibly related: c++ safeness of code with implicit conversion between signed and unsigned
– francesco
2 hours ago