Yep, that checks out...Originally Posted by kodax
2+2 is indeed 5... for large values of 2.
Code:#include <stdio.h> int main(void) { double a = 2.4, b = 2.4; printf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n", a, b, a+b); return 0; }Code:$ ./a 2 + 2 = 5
Yep, that checks out...
2+2 is indeed 5... for large values of 2.
Code:#include <stdio.h> int main(void) { double a = 2.4, b = 2.4; printf("%.0f + %.0f = %.0f\n", a, b, a+b); return 0; }Code:$ ./a 2 + 2 = 5
Last edited by hamster_nz; 10-13-2022 at 01:09 AM.
Uh, no. I mean you keep coming back with a bunch of silly or vague statements like "destructive mutation" and basically claiming that C programmers can't handle pointers in common idioms (e.g., copying one array to another), and also your buggy programs claiming to be somehow "better" or "more readable" (and now you mention a Java guy trying to do C).
Like this silly statement.
Of course you'll see a "return" type of instruction in the assembly code that was produced by the compiler. That's what the C compiler is supposed to do (like I said, falling off the end of a function is the same as inserting a "return" statement there, which is incorrect for functions that return a value) (putting a "return" statement at the end of a function returning no value is like putting an unconditional "continue" statement at the end of a loop--harmless but pointless).
But this is a discussion of C (this being a C programming forum), not of some specific machine code that has no real reason to be mentioned.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.Of course you'll see a "return" type of instruction in the assembly code
Confucius.
Yeah, this isn't going anywhere.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
