Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000.

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-17-2009
bdeepak23

Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000.

Hi all I have written the following code in C language to 'Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000' it works fine for i<10 and i<100 and also gives the right answer but for condition i<1000 the answer is in -ve something like -28345. I am trying to understand waht is wrong and how to correct it. (I have a clue of what is wrong :-) but want to hear from the experts here)

Code:

//Find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000. #include<stdio.h> #include<conio.h> void main () { int a,b,i,iSum=0; for (i=1;i<1000;i++) { a = i%3; b = i%5; if(a==0||b==0) { iSum = iSum+i; } } printf("\nThe sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000: %d\n", iSum); getch(); clrscr(); }
03-17-2009
matsp

The sum is larger than 32768, so you need to use an integer type larger than 16 bits.

You can either use a modern compiler that produces 32-bit code, or change your code to use long int instead of int for the iSum variable.

--
Mats
03-17-2009
slingerland3g

At matsp said. You are hitting integer overflow. Also you may consider to use...

Code:

iSum += i;
03-17-2009
bdeepak23

Thank you!

Thanks for the quick response matsp and slingerland. I did have a clue that the value for iSum was overflowing from int but was not very sure.I did change to iSum += i thanks again.

I tried with TurboC 3.X and TurboC++ 4.5 compilers and GCC 4.2.4 no success yet could you please suggest a decent 32 bit compiler that will run my program? (I am looking for a freeware.)
03-17-2009
sean

GCC is very well respected and is considered the de-facto standard. If it's not running your program, you should seriously consider why, and most likely follow the advice. I've used Turbo C 3.0 and 4.5 and really liked them - but they don't follow standard as strictly.

What kind of error messages are you getting with GCC? One thing that jumps out at me is that you use void main. main should return an int - some compilers allow it, but if I'm not mistaken, gcc doesn't.

edit: gcc also does not have conio.h - you would use ncurses instead. For simplicity's sake, you might as well just use conio.h on Turbo C.
03-17-2009
slingerland3g

Yeah, that void main() should have knocked me down. If you are entertaining any IDE's I use NetBeans which uses gcc as its compiler.

http://www.netbeans.org/downloads/
03-17-2009
creeping death

it runs perfectly well in gcc

Code:

............................ i=957 iSum=213603 i=960 iSum=214560 i=963 iSum=215520 i=965 iSum=216483 i=966 iSum=217448 i=969 iSum=218414 i=970 iSum=219383 i=972 iSum=220353 i=975 iSum=221325 i=978 iSum=222300 i=980 iSum=223278 i=981 iSum=224258 i=984 iSum=225239 i=985 iSum=226223 i=987 iSum=227208 i=990 iSum=228195 i=993 iSum=229185 i=995 iSum=230178 i=996 iSum=231173 i=999 iSum=232169 The sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000: 233168

i tested

consider making your datatype to unsigned since you are never interested in dealing with -ve numbers in this scenerio.

also consider i to be register data-type...as you are using that for iteration, it will be faster.
03-17-2009
dwks

Quote:

also consider i to be register data-type...as you are using that for iteration, it will be faster.

Unless you're actually using a modern compiler that would detect commonly used variables and optimize them into registers automatically. :rolleyes: :)

Seriously, unless you're doing assembly or embedded programming where you don't have a very good compiler, you probably shouldn't need to use the "register" keyword these days . . . .

Along with conio.h, getch() and clrscr() are non-standard. Instead of getch(), you can make use of getchar() (see the FAQ). And I really think that you don't need clrscr() . . . but if you really, really want your program to clear the screen after it exits, I suppose you could call system("cls"). That's not much better than clrscr(), though.

Anyway, about void main: cpwiki.sf.net/void_main
03-17-2009
whiteflags

Quote:

Originally Posted by creeping death

it runs perfectly well in gcc

Code:

............................ i=957 iSum=213603 i=960 iSum=214560 i=963 iSum=215520 i=965 iSum=216483 i=966 iSum=217448 i=969 iSum=218414 i=970 iSum=219383 i=972 iSum=220353 i=975 iSum=221325 i=978 iSum=222300 i=980 iSum=223278 i=981 iSum=224258 i=984 iSum=225239 i=985 iSum=226223 i=987 iSum=227208 i=990 iSum=228195 i=993 iSum=229185 i=995 iSum=230178 i=996 iSum=231173 i=999 iSum=232169 The sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000: 233168

i tested

I disagree that it runs perfectly. Why is iSum different from the last line and which total is correct? Your sample output raises more debugging concerns.
03-17-2009
abachler

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwks

Seriously, unless you're doing assembly or embedded programming where you don't have a very good compiler, you probably shouldn't need to use the "register" keyword these days . . . .

And in fact doing so may slow your code down.
03-17-2009
mike_g

I tried using the register keyword several times cos I thought it would make things faster... It always turned out slower than ordinary variables. static variables generally seem to speed things up, but apparently they cripple the optimiser or something. I still use them now and again in functions that get called very often.
03-17-2009
nonoob

Answer is 233168.

Can also be obtained without loops:

Code:

q = 999 / 3; sum = (q * q + q) / 2 * 3; // sum of multiples of 3 works out to 166833 q = 999 / 5; sum += (q * q + q) / 2 * 5; // sum of multiples of 5 works out to 99500 q = 999 / 15; sum -= (q * q + q) / 2 * 15; // sum of multiples of 15 works out to 33165

( 166833 + 99500 - 33165 = 233168 )

</smartass>
03-17-2009
matsp

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_g

I tried using the register keyword several times cos I thought it would make things faster... It always turned out slower than ordinary variables. static variables generally seem to speed things up, but apparently they cripple the optimiser or something. I still use them now and again in functions that get called very often.

Static variables within a function may not be so bad for the optimizer, as they are not truly GLOBAL variables, so the optimizer can know what happens to the variable (as long as the variable is not passed outside in the form of a pointer to or some such).

--
Mats
03-18-2009
bdeepak23

Hi all,

Thanks a ton for all the help. I appreciate it! Finally I was able to successfully compile/run this program.

Turbo C 3.0 and 4.5 int overflow
Gcc on Ubuntu I think I have not yet installed all the components so it errored out

I tried Netbeans with cygwin/gcc magically it worked and also gave me the correct results.
Thank you,
Deepak
03-19-2009
creeping death

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I disagree that it runs perfectly. Why is iSum different from the last line and which total is correct? Your sample output raises more debugging concerns.

oO...what the...i didnt notice that. beats me...i dont see why that should happen...the OP should be more scared than you or I though....

Quote:

And in fact doing so may slow your code down.

hmmm....i dont know

heres a pretty simple test...

Code:

#include<stdio.h> int main() { register int i=1; while(i>0) { i++; } printf("%d",i); }

i measured the time it took ... 3 times

Code:

[c_d@localhost C]$ gcc product.c [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.141s user 0m8.121s sys 0m0.002s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.116s user 0m8.108s sys 0m0.001s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.121s user 0m8.106s sys 0m0.000s

average(register variable)
realtime=8.126
usertime=8.111666667
systime=0.001

then i changed the program to
[code]

Code:

#include<stdio.h> int main() { int i=1; while(i>0) { i++; } printf("%d",i); }

the time taken were

Code:

[c_d@localhost C]$ gcc product.c [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.152s user 0m8.126s sys 0m0.004s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.167s user 0m8.132s sys 0m0.001s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.151s user 0m8.127s sys 0m0.002s

average:(normal int)
realtime=8.156666667
usertime=8.128333333
systime=0.002333333

then i modified to

Code:

#include<stdio.h> int main() { static int i=1; while(i>0) { i++; } printf("%d",i); }

and the results were

Code:

[c_d@localhost C]$ gcc product.c [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.373s user 0m8.362s sys 0m0.000s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.128s user 0m8.122s sys 0m0.001s [c_d@localhost C]$ time ./a.out -2147483648 real 0m8.690s user 0m8.667s sys 0m0.003s

average(static int)
realtime=8.397
usertime=8.383666667
systime=0.001333333

according to this little experiment...

performance of register int >int> static int

Quote:

I tried using the register keyword several times cos I thought it would make things faster... It always turned out slower than ordinary variables. static variables generally seem to speed things up, but apparently they cripple the optimiser or something. I still use them now and again in functions that get called very often.

hmm...i heard that static should be used in functions that are called many times, like recursive functions...because...every time , instead of the variables initialising again and again , static would mean one time initialisation, which would save processing time...

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page