[Rd] operation on ‘numsels’ may be undefined

cstrato cstrato at aon.at
Tue Jun 24 14:51:59 CEST 2014


Dear all,

Thank you very much for this interesting discussion, I appreciate it.

I think that Kevin gave a very good explanation why my code is 
ambiguous, although it is not clear to me why the C/C++ standard leaves 
this case undefined. One last question:
If I would write
    numsels = {++numsels;}
Is this also undefined or is this then allowed?

Best regards,
Christian


On 6/24/14 7:28 AM, Kevin Ushey wrote:
> I don't see what's so surprising here.
>
> That statement is identical to writing:
>
>      if (arrMask[i] == 1) {
>          numsels = ++numsels;
>      } else {
>          numsels = numsels;
>      }
>
> and
>
>      numsels = ++numsels;
>
> has two statements modifying the value of numsels (= and prefix-++) in
> a single sequence point. (Do we increment then assign, or assign then
> increment? The C / C++ standards leave this undefined.)
>
> Imagine writing the operations out as functions: we have the `=`
> function, and the `prefix-++` function -- both of these 'modify' (one
> of) their arguments. Do we evaluate it as `=`(a, `prefix-++`(a)) or
> `prefix-++`(`=`(a, a))? The C standard leaves this undefined, so
> compilers are free to do what they wish (and the nice ones warn you
> when there is such an ambiguity). I guess the net result of the
> operation is the same in each case _here_, but this is of course not
> the case for other functions that modify the value of their
> operand(s). And, in truth, this is _undefined behaviour_ and so the
> compiler could still rightly make demons fly out of your nose if it
> wanted to upon program execution.
>
> I highly recommend reading the slides at
> http://www.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c, especially the bit on
> sequence points.
>
> Cheers,
> Kevin
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen
> <kasperdanielhansen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not an expert on this, but I note that the section on -Wsequence-point
>> at
>>    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html
>> specifically mentions ? and :.  Perhaps some more work on tracking down
>> their definitions and precedence might lead to insights.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kasper
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Hervé Pagès <hpages at fhcrc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/23/2014 03:18 PM, Hervé Pagès wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/23/2014 11:54 AM, cstrato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Romain,
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not know enough about compilers, but as far as I remember, they
>>>>> 'work' from right to left,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. So you should not rely on that. This is what the
>>>> (somewhat obscure) warning you see on zin1 is trying to tell you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't see an ambiguity in your code:
>>>
>>>
>>>    numsels = (arrMask[i] == 1) ? ++numsels : numsels;
>>>
>>> Yes it's confusing and unnecessarily complicated but I don't see that
>>> it relies on some undefined behavior. It's not like in the thread on
>>> Bioc-devel where the expression was:
>>>
>>>    *p++ = tolower(*p);
>>>
>>> In that case the left-value of the assignment is itself an expression
>>> that needs to be evaluated and the outcome of the assignment depends
>>> on whether the left-value is evaluated before the right expression or
>>> not. But in your case the left-value is a variable name so there is
>>> nothing to evaluate.
>>>
>>> So I don't know. Looks like a false positive from the gcc compiler to
>>> me. Someone on the list might have a better insight.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> H.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Personally I would just do:
>>>>
>>>>       if (arrMask[i] == 1) numsels++;
>>>>
>>>> which is the standard way to implement the "if (some condition)
>>>> then increment counter" idiom.
>>>>
>>>> As Kasper mentioned, a similar issue was recently discussed here:
>>>>
>>>>     https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioc-devel/2014-June/005858.html
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> H.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   so numsels = ++numsels should not confuse the
>>>>> compiler. Anyhow I will change my code to your first suggestion since it
>>>>> is more elegant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Christian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/23/14 7:13 PM, Romain François wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 23 juin 2014 à 18:28, cstrato <cstrato at aon.at> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Dear Romain,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your suggestions, I like especially the first one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, you did not explain why I have never got this warning
>>>>>>> message on any compiler, and why only one of the two identical Ubuntu
>>>>>>> compilers did give this warning message?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t know, but this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> numsels = ++numsels ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seems fishy to me, and so it keeps feeling weird with the addition of
>>>>>> the ternary operator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is obviously a difference of setup between these two machines,
>>>>>> but I don’t have time to sherlock that for you. One of the compilers
>>>>>> is getting more careful than the other. Getting warnings you did not
>>>>>> get before is a good thing, as it helps you update the code with that
>>>>>> new insight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to my world, I’m sometimes thrown all kinds of new warnings
>>>>>> from esoteric compilers, all of them have value .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 6/23/14 3:45 PM, Romain François wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 23 juin 2014 à 15:20, cstrato <cstrato at aon.at> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since many years the following C++ code does compile on ALL
>>>>>>>>> Bioconductor servers (Linux, Windows, Mac) without any warnings:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Int_t numsels = 0;  //number of selected entries
>>>>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>>>>>     for (Int_t i=0; i<size; i++) {
>>>>>>>>>        numsels = (arrMask[i] == 1) ? ++numsels : numsels;
>>>>>>>>>     }//for_i
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is confusing. I would write the loop body like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> numsels += (arrMask[i] == 1) ;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or preferably using the STL:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Int_t numsels = std::count( begin(arrMask), end(arrMask), 1 ) ;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or some other variation of this, i.e. perhaps you don’t have a C++11
>>>>>>>> compiler, so perhaps one of these depending on what is arrMask:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Int_t numsels = std::count( arrMask.begin(), arrMask.end(), 1 ) ;
>>>>>>>> Int_t numsels = std::count( arrMask, arrMask + size, 1 ) ;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Romain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Even on the recently added release server 'zin2' Linux (Ubuntu
>>>>>>>>> 12.04.4 LTS) the above code compiles w/o warnings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, on the new development server 'zin1' Linux (Ubuntu 12.04.4
>>>>>>>>> LTS) I get suddenly the following warning message:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Found the following significant warnings:
>>>>>>>>>    XPSPreProcessing.cxx:3026:56: warning: operation on ‘numsels’ may
>>>>>>>>> be undefined [-Wsequence-point]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interestingly, both servers do not only run the same version of
>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu, but also the same version of the C++ compiler, i.e. g++
>>>>>>>>> (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3, and use the same flags, see:
>>>>>>>>> http://bioconductor.org/checkResults/2.14/bioc-LATEST/
>>>>>>>>> zin2-NodeInfo.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://bioconductor.org/checkResults/devel/bioc-
>>>>>>>>> LATEST/zin1-NodeInfo.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My question is now, why do I suddenly get the compiler warning?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason why I ask at R-devel and not Bioc-devel is that it may
>>>>>>>>> not only be a Bioc question, since I found the following links:
>>>>>>>>> http://c-faq.com/expr/seqpoints.html
>>>>>>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16838884/why-i-got-
>>>>>>>>> operation-may-be-undefined-in-statement-expression-in-c
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure if I understand the meaning, but until now I have
>>>>>>>>> never got any warning from any compiler the I have used (including
>>>>>>>>> MS Visual C++).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I really have to replace '++numsels' with 'numsels+1'?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>>> _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>>>>>>>>> C.h.r.i.s.t.i.a.n   S.t.r.a.t.o.w.a
>>>>>>>>> V.i.e.n.n.a           A.u.s.t.r.i.a
>>>>>>>>> e.m.a.i.l:        cstrato at aon.at
>>>>>>>>> _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________
>>>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Hervé Pagès
>>>
>>> Program in Computational Biology
>>> Division of Public Health Sciences
>>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>>> 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
>>> P.O. Box 19024
>>> Seattle, WA 98109-1024
>>>
>>> E-mail: hpages at fhcrc.org
>>> Phone:  (206) 667-5791
>>> Fax:    (206) 667-1319
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>>
>>
>>          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>>
>



More information about the R-devel mailing list