Problem With Typedef Struct

I have declared a two variable structure that has 2 long long integers.
After declaring a variable "pair", of the structure Pair, I am able to
write a value to one of the variables, "first", but not to the second
variable, "snd".
"first", though a long long was happy to receive the value of an int
variable.
"snd", though a long long will not receive any value at all, neither direct,
"pair.snd = 10;" nor "pair.snd = Length;"
The output for "pair.snd" is always zero.

I really have missed something important

What compiler are you using?

A decent properly configured compiler should be emitting a few warnings that need to be fixed, since using the incorrect format specifier for the type produces undefined behaviour.

In future please place the code, inside code tags, within the post.

Code:

---


#include<stdio.h>
typedef struct
{
    long long first;
    long long snd;
} Pair;

int main()
{
    Pair pair;
    long long Length; int N = 26;
    Length = (N * (N + 1)) / 2; //351
    printf("MAIN1: %d - %ld\n", N,Length); // 26 - 351

    pair.first = N;
    pair.snd = Length;
//
    printf("MAIN2: %ld - %ld\n", pair.first, pair.snd); // 26 - 0
    return 0;
}

---

Thanks for the reply
The compiler is Code::Blocks, 13.12 (Windows 10).
Have you answered the question or are you waiting for an answer to the complier question?
You have said something about the format specifiers, %d and %ld. Are these the problem?
Thanks and wait to hear again

The format spec for long long is "%lld". You have "%ld", which is for long.

If long long is actually bigger than long on your machine and your machine is little endian, then a 0 output for a relatively small input (e.g., 351, possibly up to 2**32 - 1 or even higher) is to be expected. Only the high-order bytes are being printed, and they are all zeroes.

What is the output of this on your machine?:

Code:

---

printf("%d : %d\n", (int)sizeof(long), (int)sizeof(long long));

---

Quote:

---

You have said something about the format specifiers, %d and %ld. Are these the problem?

---

Most likely. As I said using the wrong specifier for the type produces undefined behaviour, a very bad place to be since anything can, and usually will happen.

Thanks to both of you and here is additional information

The code: "printf("MAIN2: %ld - %lld\n", pair.first, pair.snd);"
outputs: "MAIN2: 26 - 1507533520896"

The code: "printf("MAIN2: %ld - %ld\n", pair.first, pair.snd);"
outputs: "MAIN2: 26 - 0"

According to Wikipedia (C data types - Wikipedia) the long long data type uses “%lli” as the format specifier. So I tried it
The code: "printf("MAIN2: %ld - %lli\n", pair.first, pair.snd);"
outputs: "MAIN2: 26 – 1507533520896”
Notice how the output is tha same as the %lld format specifier.

The code "printf("%d : %d\n", (int)sizeof(long), (int)sizeof(long long));"
outputs: "4 : 8"

Quote:

---

Notice how the output is tha same as the %lld format specifier.

---

That is because "%i" and "%d" are both for integer types, the difference being that the "%i" recognizes a leading zero as Octal.

What version of the compiler are you using. Are you using a 32 or 64 bit compiler?


Did you try just using a long int, instead of the long long. Perhaps your compiler doesn't properly support long long ints.

Edit: Your program prints what you expect on my machine, 64 bit, gcc version 9.2, using C11 standard.

Just to correct you, Code::Blocks will be the IDE i.e. Integrated Development Environment that you're using. Your compiler is most likely going to be GNU GCC *some version*.

BOTH format specifiers must be %lld, as in printf("MAIN2: %lld - %lld\n", pair.first, pair.snd);, rather than printf("MAIN2: %ld - %lld\n", pair.first, pair.snd);.

Update and resolution

The compiler is in fact GNU GCC. Code::Blocks is 32 bit on a 64 bit Windows 10.

Meanwhile, Christop has solved it. When the first format specifier is inaccurately %ld and the second one is correctly %lld, “pair.first” outputs correct, and pair.snd outputs incorrect. Making both %lld, as they are both long long, means the output for both is correct.

Thanks to all