Hi.
I have this problem: I used Borland C++ Builder 6 to compile a program and the result was 43380 (witch is correct from my point of view) and I compiled the same .cpp file and I used the same in data with Borland C and it showed -22156.
I'm asking why is this difference between the result of the compilers because I used the same .cpp file and I entered the same variabiles to get a result?
They're both 0xA974 in hex, the only difference being
- one is being interpreted as either an unsigned 16 bit integer, or a 32 bit integer,
- the other is a signed 16 bit integer.
> I used the same in data with Borland C and it showed -22156.
Yep, thought so - one's a new 32 bit compiler, and the other is a 16 bit fossil.
Of course, if your code was better written in that it didn't assume so much about say the range of int, then the problem wouldn't appear
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.
I used an unsigned int so it should appear correct.
I will post the code below to show you the problem:
the bold instruction is the only instruction witch uses variabiles that can be over the range of int. As you can see I used especialy an unsigned int and the result is still -22156 for an: 84, luna: 11, ziua: 20.Code:...
I don't know why.
Last edited by RaresLuc; 10-18-2006 at 03:10 PM.
printf's %d is for signed integers, use %u instead.printf("\n\ncod data: %d",cod);
> void main(void)
main returns an int.
> printf("\n\ncod data: %d",cod);
If you declared it as unsigned int, then you should really use %u to display it.
Edit: Damn - beaten by the alphabet again
I'm changing to @@Aardvark
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.
uuuu, magic
That worked. Thanks a lot.
I only need the result. I'm not interested yet in what main returns. thx anyway. (I saw you're avatar, hope you're not ........edOriginally Posted by Salem
P.S. I supose you saw I'm kind of new in the job but I'm trying hard
It's not a question of what you're interested in. It's a question of what is right according to the C standard, and what just happens to work on your particular compiler.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
I learned that declaration of main in Highschool so till now I thought is correct.
By the way, why is this not correct if the problem works well and if I don't want to include this program in some other program?
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.
