I can not find out what is the correct behaviour of this program according to ISO pascal standard. I tried to read the ISO 7185 Standard document but did not find anything on this topic. What should be the result 4 or 24 ?
program Undetermined;
var
n: Integer;
function fact: Integer;
begin
fact := 1;
if n > 1 then
begin
n := n - 1;
fact := (n + 1) * fact
end
end;
begin
n := 4;
writeln( fact )
end.
EDIT : I realised that there is a second problem in my example. So consider the new code :
program Undefined;
var
n: Integer;
function power2: Integer;
begin
power2 := 1;
if n > 0 then
begin
n := n - 1;
power2 := 2 * power2
end
end;
begin
n := 4;
writeln( power2 )
end.
The result should be 16 or 2 (according to my compiler) ?
EDIT : thanks for the answer event if they did not solve my problem. I finally got the right answer on an other forum : the ISO-standard specify the behaviour I expected but the compiler I use (fpc) does not conform the standard on that point with the default settings.
There are two separate issues here:
Does fact denote the result of the function, or a recursive call?
If it does denote a recursive call, is the result 24 or implementation defined?
1. Does fact denote the result of the function, or a recursive call?
Since fact doesn't occur on the left side of an assignment, it doesn't correspond to the result of the function, so it should invoke the function recursively. The compiler treating fact and fact() differently in this context sounds like a bug.
The standard says:
Within an activation, an applied occurrence of a label or variable-identifier, or of a procedure-identifier or function-identifier local to the block of the activation, shall denote the corresponding program-point, variable, procedure, or function, respectively, of that activation; except that the function-identifier of an assignment-statement shall, within an activation of the function denoted by that function-identifier, denote the result of that activation.
2. If it does denote a recursive call, is the result 24 or implementation defined?
Even if you disregard the recursion related issue, and use fact(), you still can't expect to always get 24 as a result.
It boils down to: "Is (n+1) or fact() evaluated first in the expression (n + 1) * fact?
The order of evaluation is implementation defined in this case. This means that different implementations following the standard can give different results, and you can't expect 24 for all of them.
To quote the standard:
6.7.2 Operators
6.7.2.1 General
Table 3 | Dyadic arithmetic operations
...
* Multiplication
...
A factor, a term, or a simple-expression shall be designated an operand. The order of evaluation of the operands of a dyadic operator shall be implementation-dependent.
NOTE | This means, for example, that the operands may be evaluated in textual order, or in reverse order, or in parallel, or they may not both be evaluated.
Free Pascal's ISO dialect mode is very young (1-2 years), as FPC generally is a Borland and not ISO oriented compiler.
The Mac Pascal mode is more tested, and is in general very ISO like. Compiling in macpascal mode will yield the "16" answer without ().
Probably ISO mode should do the same and not use the borland/delphi like return value is a pseudo variable. Please file a bug.
Related
What are "sequence points"?
What is the relation between undefined behaviour and sequence points?
I often use funny and convoluted expressions like a[++i] = i;, to make myself feel better. Why should I stop using them?
If you've read this, be sure to visit the follow-up question Undefined behavior and sequence points reloaded.
(Note: This is meant to be an entry to Stack Overflow's C++ FAQ. If you want to critique the idea of providing an FAQ in this form, then the posting on meta that started all this would be the place to do that. Answers to that question are monitored in the C++ chatroom, where the FAQ idea started out in the first place, so your answer is very likely to get read by those who came up with the idea.)
C++98 and C++03
This answer is for the older versions of the C++ standard. The C++11 and C++14 versions of the standard do not formally contain 'sequence points'; operations are 'sequenced before' or 'unsequenced' or 'indeterminately sequenced' instead. The net effect is essentially the same, but the terminology is different.
Disclaimer : Okay. This answer is a bit long. So have patience while reading it. If you already know these things, reading them again won't make you crazy.
Pre-requisites : An elementary knowledge of C++ Standard
What are Sequence Points?
The Standard says
At certain specified points in the execution sequence called sequence points, all side effects of previous evaluations
shall be complete and no side effects of subsequent evaluations shall have taken place. (§1.9/7)
Side effects? What are side effects?
Evaluation of an expression produces something and if in addition there is a change in the state of the execution environment it is said that the expression (its evaluation) has some side effect(s).
For example:
int x = y++; //where y is also an int
In addition to the initialization operation the value of y gets changed due to the side effect of ++ operator.
So far so good. Moving on to sequence points. An alternation definition of seq-points given by the comp.lang.c author Steve Summit:
Sequence point is a point in time at which the dust has settled and all side effects which have been seen so far are guaranteed to be complete.
What are the common sequence points listed in the C++ Standard?
Those are:
at the end of the evaluation of full expression (§1.9/16) (A full-expression is an expression that is not a subexpression of another expression.)1
Example :
int a = 5; // ; is a sequence point here
in the evaluation of each of the following expressions after the evaluation of the first expression (§1.9/18) 2
a && b (§5.14)
a || b (§5.15)
a ? b : c (§5.16)
a , b (§5.18) (here a , b is a comma operator; in func(a,a++) , is not a comma operator, it's merely a separator between the arguments a and a++. Thus the behaviour is undefined in that case (if a is considered to be a primitive type))
at a function call (whether or not the function is inline), after the evaluation of all function arguments (if any) which
takes place before execution of any expressions or statements in the function body (§1.9/17).
1 : Note : the evaluation of a full-expression can include the evaluation of subexpressions that are not lexically
part of the full-expression. For example, subexpressions involved in evaluating default argument expressions (8.3.6) are considered to be created in the expression that calls the function, not the expression that defines the default argument
2 : The operators indicated are the built-in operators, as described in clause 5. When one of these operators is overloaded (clause 13) in a valid context, thus designating a user-defined operator function, the expression designates a function invocation and the operands form an argument list, without an implied sequence point between them.
What is Undefined Behaviour?
The Standard defines Undefined Behaviour in Section §1.3.12 as
behavior, such as might arise upon use of an erroneous program construct or erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements 3.
Undefined behavior may also be expected when this
International Standard omits the description of any explicit definition of behavior.
3 : permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or with-
out the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message).
In short, undefined behaviour means anything can happen from daemons flying out of your nose to your girlfriend getting pregnant.
What is the relation between Undefined Behaviour and Sequence Points?
Before I get into that you must know the difference(s) between Undefined Behaviour, Unspecified Behaviour and Implementation Defined Behaviour.
You must also know that the order of evaluation of operands of individual operators and subexpressions of individual expressions, and the order in which side effects take place, is unspecified.
For example:
int x = 5, y = 6;
int z = x++ + y++; //it is unspecified whether x++ or y++ will be evaluated first.
Another example here.
Now the Standard in §5/4 says
Between the previous and next sequence point a scalar object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression.
What does it mean?
Informally it means that between two sequence points a variable must not be modified more than once.
In an expression statement, the next sequence point is usually at the terminating semicolon, and the previous sequence point is at the end of the previous statement. An expression may also contain intermediate sequence points.
From the above sentence the following expressions invoke Undefined Behaviour:
i++ * ++i; // UB, i is modified more than once btw two SPs
i = ++i; // UB, same as above
++i = 2; // UB, same as above
i = ++i + 1; // UB, same as above
++++++i; // UB, parsed as (++(++(++i)))
i = (i, ++i, ++i); // UB, there's no SP between `++i` (right most) and assignment to `i` (`i` is modified more than once btw two SPs)
But the following expressions are fine:
i = (i, ++i, 1) + 1; // well defined (AFAIK)
i = (++i, i++, i); // well defined
int j = i;
j = (++i, i++, j*i); // well defined
Furthermore, the prior value shall be accessed only to determine the value to be stored.
What does it mean? It means if an object is written to within a full expression, any and all accesses to it within the same expression must be directly involved in the computation of the value to be written.
For example in i = i + 1 all the access of i (in L.H.S and in R.H.S) are directly involved in computation of the value to be written. So it is fine.
This rule effectively constrains legal expressions to those in which the accesses demonstrably precede the modification.
Example 1:
std::printf("%d %d", i,++i); // invokes Undefined Behaviour because of Rule no 2
Example 2:
a[i] = i++ // or a[++i] = i or a[i++] = ++i etc
is disallowed because one of the accesses of i (the one in a[i]) has nothing to do with the value which ends up being stored in i (which happens over in i++), and so there's no good way to define--either for our understanding or the compiler's--whether the access should take place before or after the incremented value is stored. So the behaviour is undefined.
Example 3 :
int x = i + i++ ;// Similar to above
Follow up answer for C++11 here.
This is a follow up to my previous answer and contains C++11 related material..
Pre-requisites : An elementary knowledge of Relations (Mathematics).
Is it true that there are no Sequence Points in C++11?
Yes! This is very true.
Sequence Points have been replaced by Sequenced Before and Sequenced After (and Unsequenced and Indeterminately Sequenced) relations in C++11.
What exactly is this 'Sequenced before' thing?
Sequenced Before(§1.9/13) is a relation which is:
Asymmetric
Transitive
between evaluations executed by a single thread and induces a strict partial order1
Formally it means given any two evaluations(See below) A and B, if A is sequenced before B, then the execution of A shall precede the execution of B. If A is not sequenced before B and B is not sequenced before A, then A and B are unsequenced 2.
Evaluations A and B are indeterminately sequenced when either A is sequenced before B or B is sequenced before A, but it is unspecified which3.
[NOTES]
1 : A strict partial order is a binary relation "<" over a set P which is asymmetric, and transitive, i.e., for all a, b, and c in P, we have that:
........(i). if a < b then ¬ (b < a) (asymmetry);
........(ii). if a < b and b < c then a < c (transitivity).
2 : The execution of unsequenced evaluations can overlap.
3 : Indeterminately sequenced evaluations cannot overlap, but either could be executed first.
What is the meaning of the word 'evaluation' in context of C++11?
In C++11, evaluation of an expression (or a sub-expression) in general includes:
value computations (including determining the identity of an object for glvalue evaluation and fetching a value previously assigned to an object for prvalue evaluation) and
initiation of side effects.
Now (§1.9/14) says:
Every value computation and side effect associated with a full-expression is sequenced before every value computation and side effect associated with the next full-expression to be evaluated.
Trivial example:
int x;
x = 10;
++x;
Value computation and side effect associated with ++x is sequenced after the value computation and side effect of x = 10;
So there must be some relation between Undefined Behaviour and the above-mentioned things, right?
Yes! Right.
In (§1.9/15) it has been mentioned that
Except where noted, evaluations of operands of individual operators and of subexpressions of individual expressions are unsequenced4.
For example :
int main()
{
int num = 19 ;
num = (num << 3) + (num >> 3);
}
Evaluation of operands of + operator are unsequenced relative to each other.
Evaluation of operands of << and >> operators are unsequenced relative to each other.
4: In an expression that is evaluated more than once during the execution
of a program, unsequenced and indeterminately sequenced evaluations of its subexpressions need not be performed consistently in different evaluations.
(§1.9/15)
The value computations of the operands of an
operator are sequenced before the value computation of the result of the operator.
That means in x + y the value computation of x and y are sequenced before the value computation of (x + y).
More importantly
(§1.9/15) If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either
(a) another side effect on the same scalar object
or
(b) a value computation using the value of the same scalar object.
the behaviour is undefined.
Examples:
int i = 5, v[10] = { };
void f(int, int);
i = i++ * ++i; // Undefined Behaviour
i = ++i + i++; // Undefined Behaviour
i = ++i + ++i; // Undefined Behaviour
i = v[i++]; // Undefined Behaviour
i = v[++i]: // Well-defined Behavior
i = i++ + 1; // Undefined Behaviour
i = ++i + 1; // Well-defined Behaviour
++++i; // Well-defined Behaviour
f(i = -1, i = -1); // Undefined Behaviour (see below)
When calling a function (whether or not the function is inline), every value computation and side effect associated with any argument expression, or with the postfix expression designating the called function, is sequenced before execution of every expression or statement in the body of the called function. [Note: Value computations and side effects associated with different argument expressions are unsequenced. — end note]
Expressions (5), (7) and (8) do not invoke undefined behaviour. Check out the following answers for a more detailed explanation.
Multiple preincrement operations on a variable in C++0x
Unsequenced Value Computations
Final Note :
If you find any flaw in the post please leave a comment. Power-users (With rep >20000) please do not hesitate to edit the post for correcting typos and other mistakes.
C++17 (N4659) includes a proposal Refining Expression Evaluation Order for Idiomatic C++
which defines a stricter order of expression evaluation.
In particular, the following sentence
8.18 Assignment and compound assignment operators:....
In all cases, the assignment is sequenced after the value
computation of the right and left operands, and before the value computation of the assignment expression.
The right operand is sequenced before the left operand.
together with the following clarification
An expression X is said to be sequenced before an expression Y if every
value computation and every side effect associated with the expression X is sequenced before every value
computation and every side effect associated with the expression Y.
make several cases of previously undefined behavior valid, including the one in question:
a[++i] = i;
However several other similar cases still lead to undefined behavior.
In N4140:
i = i++ + 1; // the behavior is undefined
But in N4659
i = i++ + 1; // the value of i is incremented
i = i++ + i; // the behavior is undefined
Of course, using a C++17 compliant compiler does not necessarily mean that one should start writing such expressions.
I am guessing there is a fundamental reason for the change, it isn't merely cosmetic to make the old interpretation clearer: that reason is concurrency. Unspecified order of elaboration is merely selection of one of several possible serial orderings, this is quite different to before and after orderings, because if there is no specified ordering, concurrent evaluation is possible: not so with the old rules. For example in:
f (a,b)
previously either a then b, or, b then a. Now, a and b can be evaluated with instructions interleaved or even on different cores.
In C99(ISO/IEC 9899:TC3) which seems absent from this discussion thus far the following steteents are made regarding order of evaluaiton.
[...]the order of evaluation of subexpressions and the order in which
side effects take place are both unspecified. (Section 6.5 pp 67)
The order of evaluation of the operands is unspecified. If an attempt
is made to modify the result of an assignment operator or to access it
after the next sequence point, the behavior[sic] is undefined.(Section
6.5.16 pp 91)
I would like to know what is corresponding VHDL code for $clog2(DATA_WIDTH) , for example in this line:
parameter DATA_OUT_WIDTH = $clog2(DATA_WIDTH)
and also for this sign " -: " in this example
if ( Pattern == In[i_count-:PATTERN_WIDTH] )
I will appreciate if anyone can help me.
You can do something like this
constant DATA_OUT_WIDTH : positive := positive(ceil(log2(real(DATA_WIDTH))));
or define a clog2 function encapsulating that expression. ceil and log2 can be found in math_real
use ieee.math_real.all;
In VHDL you can just specify the full range, for example
foo(i_count to i_count + 7)
foo(i_count downto i_count - 7)
Don't use In as an identifier though, it's a reserved word in VHDL.
In addition to Lars example you can easily write a function for finding the ceiling log 2 to determine the number of element address 'bits' necessary for some bus width. Some vendors or verification support libraries provide one already.
The reason there isn't a predefined function in an IEEE library already is expressed in Lars answer, you tend not to use it much, you can assign the value to a constant and an expression can be cobbled together from existing functions.
An example clog2 function
A borrowed and converted log2 routine from IEEE package float_generic:
function clog2 (A : NATURAL) return INTEGER is
variable Y : REAL;
variable N : INTEGER := 0;
begin
if A = 1 or A = 0 then -- trivial rejection and acceptance
return A;
end if;
Y := real(A);
while Y >= 2.0 loop
Y := Y / 2.0;
N := N + 1;
end loop;
if Y > 0.0 then
N := N + 1; -- round up to the nearest log2
end if;
return N;
end function clog2;
The argument A type NATURAL prevents passing negative integer values. Rounding is strict, any remainder below 2.0 causes rounding up.
Note that because this uses REAL and uses division it's only suitable for use during analysis and elaboration. It's a pure function.
You could note Lars example:
constant DATA_OUT_WIDTH : positive := positive(ceil(log2(real(DATA_WIDTH))));
has the same constraints on use for analysis (locally static) and elaboration (globally static). REAL types are generally not supported for synthesis and floating point operations can consume lots of real estate.
The if condition
if ( Pattern == In[i_count-:PATTERN_WIDTH] )
Is a base index (an lsb or msb depending on ascending or descending declared bit order) and a width.
See IEEE Std 1800-2012 (SystemVerilog), 11.5.1 Vector bit-select and part-select addressing.
An indexed part-select is given with the following syntax:
logic [15:0] down_vect;
logic [0:15] up_vect;
down_vect[lsb_base_expr +: width_expr]
up_vect[msb_base_expr +: width_expr]
down_vect[msb_base_expr -: width_expr]
up_vect[lsb_base_expr -: width_expr]
The msb_base_expr and lsb_base_expr shall be integer expressions, and the width_expr shall be a positive constant integer expression. Each of these expressions shall be evaluated in a self-determined context. The lsb_base_expr and msb_base_expr can vary at run time. The first two examples select bits starting at the base and ascending the bit range. The number of bits selected is equal to the width expression. The second two examples select bits starting at the base and descending the bit range.
In VHDL terms this would be a slice with bounds determined from the high index and a width by subtraction.
PATTERN_WIDTH can be globally static (as in a generic constant) as well as locally static (a non-deferred constant). i_count can be variable.
Depending on the declared range of In for example:
constant DATAWIDTH: natural := 8;
signal In_in: std_logic_vector (31 downto 0);
The equivalent expression would be
if Pattern = In_in(i_count downto i_count - DATAWIDTH - 1) then
Note that if the slice length or i_count is less than DATAWIDTH - 1 you'll get a run time error. The - 1 is because In_in'RIGHT = 0.
Without providing the declarations for In (or Pattern) and DATAWIDTH a better answer can't be provided. It really wants to be re-written as VHDL friendly.
Note as Lars indicated in is reserved word (VHDL is not case sensitive here) and the name was changed.
My current method of comparing two reals (after calculations) is to take the difference and cast to an integer and compare to 0, for example (just to highlight the problem, example might work in simulator)
variable a : real := 0.1;
constant epsilon : real := 1.0E-5; -- Whatever accuracy needed, not too low though
a := a + 5.3;
assert a = 5.4; -- Yields intermitent errors
assert integer(a - 5.4) = '0'; -- Erroneous if 4.8 < a < 5.9 due to cast rounding
assert abs(a - 5.4) < epsilon; -- Will work everytime, but seems a bit forced
The reason for this way is that I got a lot of assertion errors in an testbench I wrote (a tad more complext then the example code). I was accounting these errors as floating point errors in GHDL simulator. Is there a better way to compare two reals to each other, like using machine epsilon, or any build in methods?
As indicated by #Philippe, comparison of reals requires some margin to account for limited precision and accumulated errors in the least significant bits. Using a simple epsilon value is one common way to do this but it has a limitation in that its value is absolute in relation to the numbers being compared. You need to know in advance the expected values you're comparing to pick a suitable epsilon.
If the set of numbers you need to compare covers a wide range of magnitudes you end up with an epsilon that is too large for properly comparing small values. In this situation you'd want a small epsilon when comparing small reals and a larger epsilon for larger numbers. This is accomplished by using a comparison that accounts for relative error.
This page gives a good overview of a method that allows comparison of reals using relative error rather than absolute error. The following function is an implementation of the relative comparison in VHDL:
-- Adapted from: http://floating-point-gui.de/errors/comparison/
function relatively_equal(a, b, epsilon : real) return boolean is
begin
if a = b then -- Take care of infinities
return true;
elsif a * b = 0.0 then -- Either a or b is zero
return abs(a - b) < epsilon ** 2;
else -- Relative error
return abs(a - b) / (abs(a) + abs(b)) < epsilon;
end if;
end function;
Here the epsilon parameter is a fraction that specifies the number of significant digits to compare for relative equality.
-- Compare for relative equality to three significant digits
-- These are all considered equal while using the same epsilon parameter
assert relatively_equal(1.001, 1.002, 1.0E-3) report "1.001 != 1.002";
assert relatively_equal(100.1, 100.2, 1.0E-3) report "100.1 != 100.2";
assert relatively_equal(1001.0, 1002.0, 1.0E-3) report "1001 != 1002";
-- Compare for relative equality to four significant digits
-- This will raise the assertion
assert relatively_equal(1.001, 1.002, 1.0E-4) report "1.001 != 1.002";
This question is generic to any programming language that uses "real" values (a.k.a. floating point numbers).
The standard way to compare reals in automatic tests is to define an small value epsilon. Then check that the absolute difference between your two reals is less than epsilon. You can define your own procedure assertEqual(x,y, epsilon) if you want to write concise test benches.
procedure assertEquals(
x, y : real; epsilon : real := 1.0E-5;
message : string := "";
level : severity_level := error) is
begin
assert (abs (x - y) < epsilon) report message severity level;
end procedure assertEquals;
Ok, so still getting use to the basics with processing, and I am unsure if this is the correct way to do multiple arithmetic expressions with the same data, should I be typing each as its own code, or doing it like this?
here is the question;
Write the statements which perform the following arithmetic operations (note: the variable names can be changed). (i) a=50 b=60
c=43 result1 = a+b+c result2=a*b result3 = a/b
here is my code;
short a = 50;
short b = 60;
short c = 43;
int sum = a+b+c; // Subsection i
print (sum);
int sum2 = a*b; // Subsection ii
print (sum2);
int sum3 =a/b; // Subsection iii
print (sum3);
Using the same variable for a in all three expressions, like you're doing, is the right way. This means that if you wanted to change a, b, or c you'd only have to change it in one place.
You didn't mention what language, but there are a couple problems. It's hard to say what your knowledge level is, so I apologize in advance if this is beyond the scope of the assignment.
First, your variables are defined as short but they end up being assigned to int variables. That's implicit typecasting. Granted, short is basically a subset of int in most languages, but you should be aware that you're doing it and implicit typecasting can cause problems. It's slightly bad practice.
Second, your variable names are all called sumX but only one is a sum. That's definitely bad practice. Variable names should be meaningful and represent what they actually are.
Third, your division is dividing two integers and storing the result into an integer. This means that if you're using a strongly typed language you will be truncating the fractional portion of the quotient. You will get 0 as your output: 50 / 60 = 0.8333[...] which when converted to an integer truncates to 0. You may wish to consider using double or float as your data types if your answer is supposed to be accurate.
On math.SE, a question about math notation enerated a discussion of how programming languages interpret the set {1,...,n} when n=0
The question asked for a mathematical notation to represent the R code 1:n
According to the comments, the mathematical interpretation of {1,...,n} when n=0 is that this is an empty set. A subsequent comment suggested that C is consistent with this interpretation, because for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) returns a empty set because it iterates 0 times.
It is not clear to me what the equivalent statement in R is, but 1:0 returns the vector [1,0]
Thus, for (i in 1:0) print(i) iterates over 1 and 0 (I interpret as analogous to the C code above)
Is this because {1,...,n} is not the correct notation for 1:n?
Does this mean R violates a universal rule?
Is there a consistent interpretation for this set among programming languages?
Each mathematical formalism has its own notation. To suggest that there is a "universal notation" is very "un-mathematical". Look at the notation associated with tensors or groups if you want examples of mathematical domains where multiple notational systems exist.
In R the code x <- 1:0 returns the ordered vector c(1,0). Just as the code x <- 2:-2 returns c(2,1,0,-1,-2). The code x <- seq(1, length=0) returns a sequence of length 0 which is printed in console sessions as integer(0). R is not really designed to mimic set notation but it does have some set functions and it also has packages that more fully implement set notation.
C has no concept of a set that a for loop runs over. A for loop for(a;b;c) d; is simply syntactic sugar for:
a;
loop: if (!b) goto done;
d;
c;
goto loop;
done: ;
See also my response at: Sequence construction that creates an empty sequence if lower is greater than upper bound - in R, seq_len(n) should be used in preference to 1:n for exactly this reason (the latter fails misbehaves when n=0).
some languages support the concept of ranges, in C it is arbitary what you make a for loop do, you could make it mean 0 or you could make it count backwards. In other languages a range that has the second number less that the first often produces a number sequence that is decreasing. But its arbitrary, and there is no universal rule.