find largest in array with recrusion

Wrote this one to find largest integer in one dimensional array. It has to be done without global or local variables; only indexes of start & end + array itself.
Cannot get reasonable output & I'm not sure I have the right concept here, of using compression between array[pntrA] and *(++array).

Code:

---

int largest(int *array, int pntrA, int pntrB)
{
        if (pntrA==pntrB)
                return array[pntrA];

else
        if (pntrA<pntrB)
        {
               
                        if (array[pntrA]<*(++array))
                        {
                                pntrA++;
                        return largest(array, pntrA, pntrB);       
                        }
                else
                        {
                                *(++array)=array[pntrA];
                                pntrA++;
                                return largest(array, pntrA, pntrB);
                        }
                                               
        }
        return 0;
}

---

Help will be highly appreciated

Assuming an unsorted array of course I would do something like this:

Code:

---

#include <stdio.h>

int largest(const int *, int, int);

int main(void)
{
  int arr[] = { 1, 8, 29, 3, 9, 23, 94, 2, 9};
  printf("Largest: %d\n", largest(arr, 0, (sizeof arr / sizeof arr[0]) - 1));
  return 0;
}

int largest (const int *arr, int low, int high)
{
  int mid, ret1, ret2;
  /* Since there is only one element it must be the highest */
  if ( low == high )
    return arr[low];

  /* Find the mid point of the array */
  mid = ((high - low) / 2) + low;
  /* Get the largest in the first half */
  ret1 = largest(arr, low, mid);
  /* Get the largest in the last half */
  ret2 = largest(arr, mid+1, high);
  /* Return the largest of the two values */
  return ret1 > ret2 ? ret1 : ret2;
}

---

The biggest problem I see with your code (besides formating) is that you have assignment statements that change the array. Since all you are doing is finding the largest value you should not change the values inside the array. To keep yourself from doing this change

Code:

---

int largest(int *array, int pntrA, int pntrB)

---

to

Code:

---

int largest(const int *array, int pntrA, int pntrB)

---

I think you were on the right track but it seems that you are assuming some type of sorting.

Nifty problem, that was a fun one. :) Here's my quickie attempt:

Code:

---

#include <stdio.h>

int largest ( int a[], int l, int r )
{
  if ( l == r - 1 )
    return l;
 
  r = largest ( a, l + 1, r );

  return a[r] > a[l] ? r : l;
}

int main ( void )
{
  int a[] = {5, 4, 7, 2, 9, 7, 1, 0};

  printf ( "%d\n", a[largest ( a, 0, 8 )] );

  return 0;
}

---

p.s. I'm not nearly as inflexible as Mr. Sorted (Thantos). ;)

Mine works on unsorted arrays :) Just look at my test array :)

I'm gonna change mine to only take in two pointers :)

>Mine works on unsorted arrays
Heheh, I should take a reading for comprehension course. You said "assuming an unsorted array" and I read "assuming a sorted array". ;) But you still didn't meet the requirements. It has to be done without local variables. Just the array and two index parameters. Othewise it would be too easy of a problem to be interesting.

Well I'll be a.... Yeah ok when you sign up for that course save me a spot also :)

>when you sign up for that course save me a spot also
Will do. :)

Oh one problem I've noticed with yours. It returns the position of the largest number where as the OP's code shows it returning the value.

>It returns the position of the largest number where as the OP's code shows it returning the value.
There was no mention of what the return type had to be, just that it should find the largest value in a one dimensional array. ;)

Ph34r the loophole! :D

Anyway, it's a minor change to return the value instead of the index.

In a much pretty and less user friendly package :)

Code:

---

int largest(int *arr, int l, int r)
{
  if ( l == r )
    return arr[l];

  return arr[l] > (r=largest(arr, l+1, r)) ? arr[l] : r;
}

---

I still want to do a binary search method for it. They said no local variables but made no mention of no inline asm :)

>In a much pretty and less user friendly package
If you're going to compactisize code and kill the user experience, do it the right way:

Code:

---

int(o0)(int*o,int(O),int(Q)){return(O==Q-(1^0)?*(o+O):(Q=o0(o,O+(0^1),Q))>*(o+O)?Q:*(o+O));}

---

;)

omg, prelude

>omg, prelude
That's just a simple obfuscation as the first wave. If everyone gets into it we can come up with something truly awful. ;) Imagine three or four bored programmers trying their best to show up the last program by making it even more impenetrable.

I've think we had that happen once. The results weren't pretty.

Had I known before posting this problem, its going to be such a Fascinating duel...

Thank you both Prelude & Thantos!