digitalmars.D.learn - unsigned int in for loops
- eles (12/12) Feb 04 2011 hi everybody,
- bearophile (4/6) Feb 04 2011 I don't understand your question very well, but at the moment D is doing...
- spir (7/11) Feb 04 2011 Aha! was trapped as well recently.
- Ellery Newcomer (11/23) Feb 04 2011 I think this was the impetus for foreach_reverse, or at least it is one
- Jesse Phillips (2/9) Feb 04 2011 There was some discussion about removing this... don't remember the conc...
- Jonathan M Davis (3/14) Feb 04 2011 I thought that foreach_reverse was already gone.
- Ellery Newcomer (137/146) Feb 04 2011 the range syntax isn't. but yeah.
hi everybody, recently i was hit by an old-known programming error, using unsigned int in for loops could get into infinite traps: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/665745/whats-the-best-way-to-do-a-reverse- for-loop-with-an-unsigned-index so, i D (1 or 2) is counter-attacking in some way (for example, disabling implicit casting of (-1) to UINT_MAX). cordially, eles. PS i really like being able to use an unsigned int for those loops, both for logical and for programming (large values of the loop index), while still avoiding such traps. thanks.
Feb 04 2011
bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> eles:so, i D (1 or 2) is counter-attacking in some way (for example, disabling implicit casting of (-1) to UINT_MAX).I don't understand your question very well, but at the moment D is doing nearly nothing to avoid this kind of bugs (I have written probably tens of posts on this topic, with little results). Bye, bearophile
Feb 04 2011
On 02/04/2011 05:14 PM, eles wrote:recently i was hit by an old-known programming error, using unsigned int in for loops could get into infinite traps: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/665745/whats-the-best-way-to-do-a-reverse- for-loop-with-an-unsigned-indexAha! was trapped as well recently. denis -- _________________ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
Feb 04 2011
I think this was the impetus for foreach_reverse, or at least it is one
place where it is pretty handy. Don't remember what all there is in D1,
but in D2 you could do something like
foreach_reverse(i; 0u .. 10u){
// iterates over 9,8,7 .. 1,0
}
for more complex iterations, I suppose you're stuck with
foreach(i; retro(somerange)){
}
or tired old for loops
On 02/04/2011 10:14 AM, eles wrote:
hi everybody,
recently i was hit by an old-known programming error, using unsigned int in for
loops could get into infinite traps:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/665745/whats-the-best-way-to-do-a-reverse-
for-loop-with-an-unsigned-index
so, i D (1 or 2) is counter-attacking in some way (for example, disabling
implicit casting of (-1) to UINT_MAX).
cordially,
eles.
PS i really like being able to use an unsigned int for those loops, both for
logical and for programming (large values of the loop index), while still
avoiding such traps. thanks.
Feb 04 2011
Ellery Newcomer Wrote:
I think this was the impetus for foreach_reverse, or at least it is one
place where it is pretty handy. Don't remember what all there is in D1,
but in D2 you could do something like
foreach_reverse(i; 0u .. 10u){
// iterates over 9,8,7 .. 1,0
}
There was some discussion about removing this... don't remember the conclusion.
I believe it is also in D1 though.
Feb 04 2011
On Friday 04 February 2011 12:31:06 Jesse Phillips wrote:Ellery Newcomer Wrote:I thought that foreach_reverse was already gone. - Jonathan M DavisI think this was the impetus for foreach_reverse, or at least it is one place where it is pretty handy. Don't remember what all there is in D1, but in D2 you could do something like foreach_reverse(i; 0u .. 10u){ // iterates over 9,8,7 .. 1,0 }There was some discussion about removing this... don't remember the conclusion. I believe it is also in D1 though.
Feb 04 2011
On 02/04/2011 02:31 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:Ellery Newcomer Wrote:the range syntax isn't. but yeah. personally, I would prefer keeping foreach_reverse as long as dmd isn't capable of optimizing the crap out of the likes of foreach(i; retro(iota(0u,10u)){ } wait, wtf? this code: import std.stdio; import std.range; void main(){ uint sum; foreach_reverse(i; 0u .. 10u){ sum += i; } writeln(sum); } compiled normally yields: 80497d4: 55 push ebp 80497d5: 8b ec mov ebp,esp 80497d7: 83 ec 0c sub esp,0xc 80497da: 31 c0 xor eax,eax 80497dc: 89 45 f4 mov DWORD PTR [ebp-0xc],eax 80497df: 89 45 f8 mov DWORD PTR [ebp-0x8],eax 80497e2: c7 45 fc 0a 00 00 00 mov DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4],0xa 80497e9: 8b 4d fc mov ecx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4] 80497ec: ff 4d fc dec DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4] 80497ef: 3b 4d f8 cmp ecx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x8] 80497f2: 76 08 jbe 80497fc <_Dmain+0x28> 80497f4: 8b 55 fc mov edx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4] 80497f7: 01 55 f4 add DWORD PTR [ebp-0xc],edx 80497fa: eb ed jmp 80497e9 <_Dmain+0x15> 80497fc: 8b 45 f4 mov eax,DWORD PTR [ebp-0xc] 80497ff: e8 04 00 00 00 call 8049808 <_D3std5stdio14__T7writelnTkZ7writelnFkZv> 8049804: 31 c0 xor eax,eax 8049806: c9 leave 8049807: c3 ret this code: import std.stdio; import std.range; void main(){ uint sum; foreach(i; retro(iota(1u,10))){ sum += i; } writeln(sum); } compiled with -O -inline -release, yields: 80497d4: 55 push ebp 80497d5: 8b ec mov ebp,esp 80497d7: 83 ec 54 sub esp,0x54 80497da: 53 push ebx 80497db: 8d 45 e8 lea eax,[ebp-0x18] 80497de: 31 db xor ebx,ebx 80497e0: 56 push esi 80497e1: 57 push edi 80497e2: 6a 01 push 0x1 80497e4: 6a 0a push 0xa 80497e6: 6a 01 push 0x1 80497e8: 89 18 mov DWORD PTR [eax],ebx 80497ea: 89 58 04 mov DWORD PTR [eax+0x4],ebx 80497ed: 89 58 08 mov DWORD PTR [eax+0x8],ebx 80497f0: e8 af 00 00 00 call 80498a4 <_D3std5range13__T4IotaTkTkZ4Iota6__ctorMFNckkkZS3std5range13__T4IotaTkTkZ4Iota> 80497f5: 89 c6 mov esi,eax 80497f7: 8d 7d dc lea edi,[ebp-0x24] 80497fa: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 80497fb: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] ; whaaat? 80497fc: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] ; whaaat? 80497fd: 8d 75 dc lea esi,[ebp-0x24] 8049800: 8d 7d d0 lea edi,[ebp-0x30] 8049803: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049804: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049805: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049806: 8d 75 d0 lea esi,[ebp-0x30] 8049809: 8d 7d c4 lea edi,[ebp-0x3c] 804980c: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 804980d: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 804980e: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 804980f: 8d 75 c4 lea esi,[ebp-0x3c] 8049812: 8d 7d f4 lea edi,[ebp-0xc] 8049815: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049816: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049817: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049818: 8d 75 f4 lea esi,[ebp-0xc] 804981b: 8d 7d b8 lea edi,[ebp-0x48] 804981e: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 804981f: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049820: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049821: 8d 75 b8 lea esi,[ebp-0x48] 8049824: 8d 7d ac lea edi,[ebp-0x54] 8049827: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049828: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 8049829: a5 movs DWORD PTR es:[edi],DWORD PTR ds:[esi] 804982a: 8b 45 ac mov eax,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x54] 804982d: 3b 45 b0 cmp eax,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x50] 8049830: 74 16 je 8049848 <_Dmain+0x74> 8049832: 8b 4d b0 mov ecx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x50] 8049835: 8b 55 b4 mov edx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4c] 8049838: 8b 75 ac mov esi,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x54] 804983b: 2b 4d b4 sub ecx,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x4c] 804983e: 01 cb add ebx,ecx 8049840: 29 55 b0 sub DWORD PTR [ebp-0x50],edx 8049843: 3b 75 b0 cmp esi,DWORD PTR [ebp-0x50] 8049846: 75 ea jne 8049832 <_Dmain+0x5e> 8049848: 53 push ebx 8049849: b8 44 67 07 08 mov eax,0x8076744 804984e: 6a 0a push 0xa 8049850: e8 3b 04 00 00 call 8049c90 <_D3std5stdio4File14__T5writeTkTaZ5writeMFkaZv> 8049855: 31 c0 xor eax,eax 8049857: 5f pop edi 8049858: 5e pop esi 8049859: 5b pop ebx 804985a: 8b e5 mov esp,ebp 804985c: 5d pop ebp 804985d: c3 ret is it just me, or is flow analysis failing pretty hard here?I think this was the impetus for foreach_reverse, or at least it is one place where it is pretty handy. Don't remember what all there is in D1, but in D2 you could do something like foreach_reverse(i; 0u .. 10u){ // iterates over 9,8,7 .. 1,0 }There was some discussion about removing this... don't remember the conclusion. I believe it is also in D1 though.
Feb 04 2011