Programmer Humor

19660 readers

1732 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

283

I mean it could be right (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/programmer_humor

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

for (int y = MIN_INT; y &lt;= MAX_INT; y++) {
        if (y == x + 1) {
                x = y;
        }
}

(Not sure there's a way to prevent Lemmy from escaping my left angle bracket. I definitely didn't type ampersand-el-tee-semicolon. You'll just have to squint and pretend. I'm using the default lemmy-ui frontend.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

y <= MAX_INT will never be false, since the loop will overflow and wrap around to MIN_INT

(You can escape code with `backticks`, and regular markdown rules)

[–] mormegil 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It will not "overflow". Signed integer overflow is undefined behavior. The compiler could remove the whole loop or do anything else imaginable (or not).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TIL!

I wonder how many languages out there do define what happens on integer overflow.

[–] BatmanAoD 1 points 1 year ago

Languages with dynamic typing and implicit large-integer types, such as Python and Ruby, generally just convert to that large-integer type.

I figured Java would probably define the behavior in the JVM, but based on a quick web search it sounds like it probably doesn't by default, but does provide library methods to add or subtract safely.

Rust guarantees a panic by default, but provides library methods for wrapping, saturating, and unchecked (i.e. unsafely opting back in to undefined behavior).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh good call! What I was trying to do is more complex than I was thinking.

Hmmmmm.

int f = TRUE;
for (int y = MIN_INT; f || y - 1 &lt; y; y++) {
  f = FALSE;
  if (y == x + 1) {
    x = y;
  }
}

(I should just test my code to make sure it works, but I haven't. Heh.)

Also, Lemmy escaped your angle bracket too. Back ticks don't seem to do the trick.

Block: &lt;

Inline: <

Or were you suggesting back ticks for some other purpose? (I did use back ticks in my first post in this thread.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The backticks worked in the preview, and showed up correctly to start, but there must be a bug in the lemmy ui, since now it's double-escaped. No idea /shrug