Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 04:25 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

On Jun 30, 8:49 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

These types already have perfectly good names already. Why give them
new ones?

No purpose really. Just that in some of my functions, there are too
many parameters already and the whole thing doesn't fit in single
line.

If you must rename them for some reason, use typedefs, not macros.
>

ok

**Keith Thompson** · Jun 30 '08, 04:45 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges <Broli00@gmail. comwrites:

On Jun 30, 8:49 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

These types already have perfectly good names already. Why give them
new ones?

>
No purpose really. Just that in some of my functions, there are too
many parameters already and the whole thing doesn't fit in single
line.

So write it on multiple lines.

Given:
#define ulong unsigned long int
#define uchar unsigned char
or, preferably:
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef unsigned char uchar;

If I'm reading your code and see a reference to "ulong", I can't
understand what it means until I've confirmed that "ulong" means
"unsigned long int" (which I'd probably write as "unsigned long").
And I have to wonder whether you might some day change the definition
so "ulong" means something else.

If you drop the definition of "ulong" and just write "unsigned long"
directly, I don't have to wonder; your code will be clearer.

Now if you want a typedef whose name says something about how you're
using the type, rather than how it's define, that's a different
matter.

You use "ulong" for array indices; it would make more sense to use
size_t.

You use "uchar" for a parameter that can only have the value 0, 1, or
2. I'd use int. Using unsigned char might save some space, but it's
just as likely to cost you in code size, since the compiler has to
generate code to expand the 1-byte value into a word before it can
operate on it, and to shrink it back down to 1 byte before storing it.
You also make the reader wonder whether there's some fundamental
reason for this value to fit into a byte (there isn't). If you had an
array of these things, it would make sense to use a smaller type.
Since it's just a single parameter, using int is fine.

If you must rename them for some reason, use typedefs, not macros.

>
ok

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

**Jens Thoms Toerring** · Jun 30 '08, 04:45 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges <Broli00@gmail. comwrote:

On Jun 30, 8:49 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

These types already have perfectly good names already. Why give them
new ones?

No purpose really. Just that in some of my functions, there are too
many parameters already and the whole thing doesn't fit in single
line.

You don't have to put all arguments etc. on a single line, e.g.

void
quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis )

will do nicely and may even increases readabilty (and there's
still space for adding a short comment;-)

Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\______________ ____________ http://toerring.de

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 05:05 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

On Jun 30, 9:43 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

So write it on multiple lines.
>
Given:
#define ulong unsigned long int
#define uchar unsigned char
or, preferably:
typedef unsigned long int ulong;
typedef unsigned char uchar;
>
If I'm reading your code and see a reference to "ulong", I can't
understand what it means until I've confirmed that "ulong" means
"unsigned long int" (which I'd probably write as "unsigned long").
And I have to wonder whether you might some day change the definition
so "ulong" means something else.
>
If you drop the definition of "ulong" and just write "unsigned long"
directly, I don't have to wonder; your code will be clearer.
>
Now if you want a typedef whose name says something about how you're
using the type, rather than how it's define, that's a different
matter.
>
You use "ulong" for array indices; it would make more sense to use
size_t.
>
You use "uchar" for a parameter that can only have the value 0, 1, or
2. I'd use int. Using unsigned char might save some space, but it's
just as likely to cost you in code size, since the compiler has to
generate code to expand the 1-byte value into a word before it can
operate on it, and to shrink it back down to 1 byte before storing it.
You also make the reader wonder whether there's some fundamental
reason for this value to fit into a byte (there isn't). If you had an
array of these things, it would make sense to use a smaller type.
Since it's just a single parameter, using int is fine.
>

If I had to store 80-90 of structures and each had a member say
'axis'. How much of a difference would using a unsigned char over int
would make (for that member) ? For my program, space as well as
performance are important.

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 05:05 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

On Jun 30, 9:44 pm, j...@toerring.d e (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote:

You don't have to put all arguments etc. on a single line, e.g.
>
void
quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis )
>
will do nicely and may even increases readabilty (and there's
still space for adding a short comment;-)
>

Just a style question (I'm cleaning up my code)

Which of the two in your opinion is better ?

void quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis ) {

....
....
}

OR

void quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis )
{

....
....
}

**Keith Thompson** · Jun 30 '08, 05:15 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges <Broli00@gmail. comwrites:
[...]

If I had to store 80-90 of structures and each had a member say
'axis'. How much of a difference would using a unsigned char over int
would make (for that member) ? For my program, space as well as
performance are important.

It depends.

If "axis" is the last member of your structure, it's likely that the
compiler will insert padding after it if it's an unsigned char anyway,
so declaring it as int would make no difference.

In the worst case (well, the worst plausible case), the cost of using
int would be 90 * (sizeof(int) - 1), which is trivial on anything
other than a small embedded system. But using int could easily save
code space, depending on the underlying architecture. And if you're
concerned about speed, it's likely (though by no means guaranteed)
that operations on int will be faster than operations on unsigned
char.

I think you're engaging in premature micro-optimization.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

**pete** · Jun 30 '08, 05:15 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges wrote:

If I had to store 80-90 of structures and each had a member say
'axis'. How much of a difference would using a unsigned char over int
would make (for that member) ? For my program, space as well as
performance are important.

On my machine it would make
no difference in terms of usable memory saved
and it would slow down the arithmetic operations.

An array of char will save usable space over an array of int;
but if I only define several distinct char objects in a function,
my compiler will place them on int boundaries.
Meaning that in between the char objects,
there are three bytes of unusable memory
(sizof(int) equals 4 on my machine).

char arithmetic on my machine
is accomplished in int size objects or registers,
requiring additional masking operations.

--
pete

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 06:05 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

btw, i see a lot of people saying that size_t must be used over
unsigned long. The question is are there any fix guidelines as to when
i should and when i shouldn't use size_t. It seems to me that size_t
is most commonly used in three situations :

1. Size of array or any object.
2. Array indices.
3. Count of something.

Although I don't see why using unsigned long for any of the above
could be wrong. It may not be a necessity to use size_t

**Jens Thoms Toerring** · Jun 30 '08, 06:15 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges <Broli00@gmail. comwrote:

On Jun 30, 9:44 pm, j...@toerring.d e (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote:

You don't have to put all arguments etc. on a single line, e.g.

void
quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis )

will do nicely and may even increases readabilty (and there's
still space for adding a short comment;-)

Just a style question (I'm cleaning up my code)

Which of the two in your opinion is better ?

void quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis ) {

....
....
}

OR

void quicksort( vector ** parent_vpa,
unsigned long left,
unsigned long right,
unsigned char axis )
{

....
....
}

I usually go for the way that has more white-space, probably
because my eyes aren't as good anymore as they used to be,
so I usually put the opening brace on a new line (at least
when I am writing C, in Perl I do it the other way round;-).
So I personally don't mind much. Just pick something that
looks good to you and is logically consistent (or, if you
are working somewhere, use the in-house style) and use that
consistently.
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\______________ ____________ http://toerring.de

**Keith Thompson** · Jun 30 '08, 06:15 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges <Broli00@gmail. comwrites:

btw, i see a lot of people saying that size_t must be used over
unsigned long. The question is are there any fix guidelines as to when
i should and when i shouldn't use size_t. It seems to me that size_t
is most commonly used in three situations :
>
1. Size of array or any object.
2. Array indices.
3. Count of something.
>
Although I don't see why using unsigned long for any of the above
could be wrong. It may not be a necessity to use size_t

size_t can represent the size in bytes of any object (since it's the
type of the result of the sizeof operator and of the argument to
malloc(). It can therefore represent the size in elements of any
array object, making it suitable for array indices.

The third is a bit more iffy; it depends on what you're counting.

But there are no such guarantees for unsigned long. Consider a
hypothetical system where unsigned long is 32 bits and size_t is 64
bits. You might have objects whose size cannnot be represented as an
unsigned long value.

The question is, why would you want to use unsigned long rather than
size_t?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

**pete** · Jun 30 '08, 06:25 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges wrote:

btw, i see a lot of people saying that size_t must be used over
unsigned long. The question is are there any fix guidelines as to when
i should and when i shouldn't use size_t. It seems to me that size_t
is most commonly used in three situations :
>
1. Size of array or any object.
2. Array indices.
3. Count of something.
>
Although I don't see why using unsigned long for any of the above
could be wrong. It may not be a necessity to use size_t

size_t is for counting parts of an object.
That's cases 1 and 2 of your list.
In terms of efficiency, you can expect that size_t
will probably be the fastest type that is big enough
to do the job.

When I count nodes in linked list, I use long unsigned.
The number of nodes that malloc can generate,
isn't related to size_t.

--
pete

**santosh** · Jun 30 '08, 06:25 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

pereges wrote:

btw, i see a lot of people saying that size_t must be used over
unsigned long. The question is are there any fix guidelines as to when
i should and when i shouldn't use size_t. It seems to me that size_t
is most commonly used in three situations :
>
1. Size of array or any object.

This is the purpose of size_t.

2. Array indices.

IMHO, any unsigned type of suitable range will do. Sometimes signed
types are convenient too, for certain forms of loops, and rarely, to
index with a negative offset.

3. Count of something.

Again a suitable unsigned type, not necessarily size_t should be okay.

Although I don't see why using unsigned long for any of the above
could be wrong. It may not be a necessity to use size_t

You are correct. In C, size_t has the only purpose of being large enough
to hold the size in bytes of the largest possible single object. Also
the sizeof operator yields a size_t value for related reasons. It is
not necessarily a suitable type for counting things are holding
offsets, indexes and such.

Generally, a careful examination of the origin, purpose and types of use
a value may be subject to will give you a clue as to the most suitable
type of object to represent it.

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 06:45 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

On Jun 30, 11:19 pm, santosh <santosh....@gm ail.comwrote:

1. Size of array or any object.

>
This is the purpose of size_t.
>

2. Array indices.

>
IMHO, any unsigned type of suitable range will do. Sometimes signed
types are convenient too, for certain forms of loops, and rarely, to
index with a negative offset.
>

3. Count of something.

>
Again a suitable unsigned type, not necessarily size_t should be okay.
>

Although I don't see why using unsigned long for any of the above
could be wrong. It may not be a necessity to use size_t

>
You are correct. In C, size_t has the only purpose of being large enough
to hold the size in bytes of the largest possible single object. Also
the sizeof operator yields a size_t value for related reasons. It is
not necessarily a suitable type for counting things are holding
offsets, indexes and such.
>
Generally, a careful examination of the origin, purpose and types of use
a value may be subject to will give you a clue as to the most suitable
type of object to represent it.

Thanks for the clarification. After reading this, I guess I will
continue using unsigned long for all the 3 situations.

**pereges** · Jun 30 '08, 07:05 PM

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

On Jun 30, 11:13 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

size_t can represent the size in bytes of any object (since it's the
type of the result of the sizeof operator and of the argument to
malloc(). It can therefore represent the size in elements of any
array object, making it suitable for array indices.
>
The third is a bit more iffy; it depends on what you're counting.
>
But there are no such guarantees for unsigned long. Consider a
hypothetical system where unsigned long is 32 bits and size_t is 64
bits. You might have objects whose size cannnot be represented as an
unsigned long value.
>
The question is, why would you want to use unsigned long rather than
size_t?

Suppose I have a structure:

struct mesh
{
unsigned long nvert; /* number of vertices */
unsigned long ntri; /* number of triangles */
vector *vert; /* pointer to array of vertices */
triangle *tri; /* pointer to array of triangles */
};

Now, according to what you are saying nvert and ntri should have data
type size_t instead. In my program its possible for nvert and ntri to
be in millions. I have been adviced that size_t in many cases causes
loss of data, hence I'm skecptical about its use. Also, I would want
to keep things consistent.

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

Re: Promoting unsigned long int to long int

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment