Strange behaviour?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Seebs, Nov 15, 2011.

  1. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2011-11-15, dmjcunha <> wrote:
    > $6 = 10 <-------------- here I don't understand. There was no
    > computation with rmid and it changed strangely to 10.


    Turn off optimization when trying to debug stuff like this. The
    generated code is not necessarily doing everything in the order it was
    written in. For the compiler you're probably using, this is spelled
    "-O0".

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Nov 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Seebs

    dmjcunha Guest

    In the code below something odd happens when it is called with:
    merge (a[], lledge=13, lredge=15, lcedge=16, rcedge=17, rledge=18,
    rredge=19)

    I will post the gdb output to show the behaviour:

    Breakpoint 2, merge (a=0xbffff24c, lledge=13, lredge=15, lcedge=16,
    rcedge=17, rledge=18, rredge=19) at ex8.11.c:91
    91 for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    (gdb) p rmid
    $1 = 18
    (gdb) s
    92 aux[lri - 1] = a[lri - 1];
    (gdb) p rmid
    $2 = 18
    (gdb) s
    91 for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    (gdb) p rmid
    $3 = 18
    (gdb) s
    93 for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    (gdb) p rmid
    $4 = 18
    (gdb) s
    94 aux[rredge + rmid - rrj] = a[rrj + 1];
    (gdb) p rmid
    $5 = 18
    (gdb) s
    93 for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    (gdb) p rmid
    $6 = 10 <-------------- here I don't understand. There was no
    computation with rmid and it changed strangely to 10.

    A piece of the function I think you could help me:

    void merge(int a[], int lledge, int lredge, int lcedge, int rcedge,
    int rledge, int rredge)
    {
    int aux[N - 1], lmid, cmid, rmid, k;
    int lli, lrj, lci, rcj, lri, rrj;
    int minor;
    char letter;
    struct attempt {
    int min;
    char let; };
    struct attempt lattempt1, cattempt2, rattempt3;
    struct attempt *lattempt, *cattempt, *rattempt;

    lattempt = &lattempt1;
    cattempt = &cattempt2;
    rattempt = &rattempt3;

    lmid = (lledge + lredge) / 2;
    cmid = (lcedge + rcedge) / 2;
    rmid = (rledge + rredge) / 2;

    for(lli = lmid + 1; lli > lledge; lli--)
    aux[lli - 1] = a[lli - 1];
    for(lrj = lmid; lrj < lredge; lrj++)
    aux[lredge + lmid - lrj] = a[lrj + 1];

    for(lci = cmid + 1; lci > lcedge; lci--)
    aux[lci - 1] = a[lci - 1];
    for(rcj = cmid; rcj < rcedge; rcj++)
    aux[rcedge + cmid - rcj] = a[rcj + 1];

    for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    aux[lri - 1] = a[lri - 1];
    for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    aux[rredge + rmid - rrj] = a[rrj + 1];

    for(k = lledge; k <= rredge; k++) {
    ...

    Thanks in advance!
     
    dmjcunha, Nov 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Seebs

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 11/15/2011 02:31 PM, dmjcunha wrote:
    > In the code below something odd happens when it is called with:
    > merge (a[], lledge=13, lredge=15, lcedge=16, rcedge=17, rledge=18,
    > rredge=19)
    >
    > I will post the gdb output to show the behaviour:
    >
    > Breakpoint 2, merge (a=0xbffff24c, lledge=13, lredge=15, lcedge=16,
    > rcedge=17, rledge=18, rredge=19) at ex8.11.c:91
    > 91 for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $1 = 18
    > (gdb) s
    > 92 aux[lri - 1] = a[lri - 1];
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $2 = 18
    > (gdb) s
    > 91 for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $3 = 18
    > (gdb) s
    > 93 for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $4 = 18
    > (gdb) s
    > 94 aux[rredge + rmid - rrj] = a[rrj + 1];
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $5 = 18
    > (gdb) s
    > 93 for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    > (gdb) p rmid
    > $6 = 10 <-------------- here I don't understand. There was no
    > computation with rmid and it changed strangely to 10.
    >
    > A piece of the function I think you could help me:
    >
    > void merge(int a[], int lledge, int lredge, int lcedge, int rcedge,
    > int rledge, int rredge)
    > {
    > int aux[N - 1], lmid, cmid, rmid, k;


    I'd recommend printing out the values that you subscript aux[] with. I
    think you'll find that one or more of them is negative or exceeds N-2.
    That would render the behavior undefined. On many implementations, the
    undefined behavior takes the form of having aux[N-1] be an alias for
    lmid, aux[N] being an alias for cmid, and aux[N+1] be an alias for rmid,
    etc, which would explain the symptoms you're seeing.

    What this implies is that this function should validate the values of
    the parameters that determine what range of values is used to access
    aux[]. You should give it a return type, and have it return an error
    code if one of those values is out of range. The calling routine should
    pay attention to this error code, and deal with it in whatever manner
    seems appropriate.

    > int lli, lrj, lci, rcj, lri, rrj;
    > int minor;
    > char letter;
    > struct attempt {
    > int min;
    > char let; };
    > struct attempt lattempt1, cattempt2, rattempt3;
    > struct attempt *lattempt, *cattempt, *rattempt;
    >
    > lattempt = &lattempt1;
    > cattempt = &cattempt2;
    > rattempt = &rattempt3;
    >
    > lmid = (lledge + lredge) / 2;
    > cmid = (lcedge + rcedge) / 2;
    > rmid = (rledge + rredge) / 2;
    >
    > for(lli = lmid + 1; lli > lledge; lli--)
    > aux[lli - 1] = a[lli - 1];
    > for(lrj = lmid; lrj < lredge; lrj++)
    > aux[lredge + lmid - lrj] = a[lrj + 1];
    >
    > for(lci = cmid + 1; lci > lcedge; lci--)
    > aux[lci - 1] = a[lci - 1];
    > for(rcj = cmid; rcj < rcedge; rcj++)
    > aux[rcedge + cmid - rcj] = a[rcj + 1];
    >
    > for(lri = rmid + 1; lri > rledge; lri--)
    > aux[lri - 1] = a[lri - 1];
    > for(rrj = rmid; rrj < rredge; rrj++)
    > aux[rredge + rmid - rrj] = a[rrj + 1];
    >
    > for(k = lledge; k <= rredge; k++) {
    > ...
    >
    > Thanks in advance!
     
    James Kuyper, Nov 15, 2011
    #3
  4. Seebs

    dmjcunha Guest

    On Nov 15, 4:26 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2011-11-15, dmjcunha <> wrote:
    >
    > > $6 = 10    <-------------- here I don't understand. There was no
    > > computation with rmid and it changed strangely to 10.

    >
    > Turn off optimization when trying to debug stuff like this.  The
    > generated code is not necessarily doing everything in the order it was
    > written in.  For the compiler you're probably using, this is spelled
    > "-O0".
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    > I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.


    Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.
     
    dmjcunha, Nov 15, 2011
    #4
  5. dmjcunha <> writes:
    > On Nov 15, 4:26 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-11-15, dmjcunha <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > $6 = 10    <-------------- here I don't understand. There was no
    >> > computation with rmid and it changed strangely to 10.

    >>
    >> Turn off optimization when trying to debug stuff like this.  The
    >> generated code is not necessarily doing everything in the order it was
    >> written in.  For the compiler you're probably using, this is spelled
    >> "-O0".

    [...]>
    > Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    > James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.


    If changing the optimization level changes the behavior of your code, it
    probably indicates a bug in your code. Most likely your program's
    behavior is undefined.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Nov 15, 2011
    #5
  6. Seebs

    Willem Guest

    dmjcunha wrote:
    ) Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    ) James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.

    No, it wasn't solved. It was just hidden from view.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Nov 15, 2011
    #6
  7. Seebs

    dmjcunha Guest

    On Nov 15, 7:35 pm, Willem <> wrote:
    > dmjcunha wrote:
    >
    > ) Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    > ) James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.
    >
    > No, it wasn't solved.  It was just hidden from view.
    >
    > SaSW, Willem
    > --
    > Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    >             made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    >             drugged or something..
    >             No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    > #EOT


    Thank you all for the warnings. Anyway I think it is something a
    little bit beyond my current level of knowledge. I'll keep studying.
    Thanks!
     
    dmjcunha, Nov 16, 2011
    #7
  8. Seebs

    Willem Guest

    dmjcunha wrote:
    ) On Nov 15, 7:35?pm, Willem <> wrote:
    )> dmjcunha wrote:
    )>
    )> ) Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    )> ) James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.
    )>
    )> No, it wasn't solved. ?It was just hidden from view.
    )
    ) Thank you all for the warnings. Anyway I think it is something a
    ) little bit beyond my current level of knowledge. I'll keep studying.
    ) Thanks!

    The best way to learn is to tackle something that is just a little bit
    beyond your current level of knowledge. In any case, there have been
    several pointers as to the actual problem in your code, which should
    give a good starting point to solve it. And I'm sure that if you get
    stuck in that process, the people on thie NG are more than willing to
    help you.


    SaSW, Willem
    --
    Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    drugged or something..
    No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    #EOT
     
    Willem, Nov 16, 2011
    #8
  9. On Nov 16, 11:37 am, dmjcunha <> wrote:
    > On Nov 15, 7:35 pm, Willem <> wrote:
    > > dmjcunha wrote:


    > > ) Strange, I tried "-O1" and the problem was solved.
    > > ) James Kuyper, thank you for the explanation.

    >
    > > No, it wasn't solved.  It was just hidden from view.

    >
    > > SaSW, Willem
    > > --
    > > Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
    > >             made in the above text. For all I know I might be
    > >             drugged or something..
    > >             No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
    > > #EOT


    it susual to trim out (snip) any signatures (usually any text after a
    "--" of "-- " on a line of their own is a signature).

    > Thank you all for the warnings. Anyway I think it is something a
    > little bit beyond my current level of knowledge. I'll keep studying.
    > Thanks!


    well if you say an array has 3 items in it and then you try and access
    the 4th element then Bad Things happen. If you're *lucky* your
    computer crashes. If you're unlucky it just does something bizzare and
    hard to debug.
     
    Nick Keighley, Nov 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Seebs

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2011-11-16, Kenneth Brody <> wrote:
    > I would recommend going back to the compile flags in which the bug was
    > visible. Run that in the debugger again, and at the point that rmid is
    > about to "magically" change, check the values of N, rredge, rmid, and rrj.
    > You will probably see that redge+rmid-rj exceeds N-2, or is less than zero.


    With optimization, looking at variables is not reliable under the GNU toolchain
    (gcc + gdb). GDB does not know, in general, where a variable lives at any
    point in the code: is its current home in the backing memory location or
    in a register? You have to disassemble the code, or add some printf calls and
    hope that it still reproduces the same way.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Nov 16, 2011
    #10
  11. Seebs

    dmjcunha Guest

    I'm sorry to all of you. Sorry to have spent your time. The argument a
    is a[N] and aux should also be aux[N]. I don't know what happened that
    I typed aux[N-1].
    I hope you experienced programmers forgive me for this typical
    beginner mistake. Now everything is fine without "-O1" :)
     
    dmjcunha, Nov 16, 2011
    #11
  12. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2011-11-16, dmjcunha <> wrote:
    > I'm sorry to all of you. Sorry to have spent your time. The argument a
    > is a[N] and aux should also be aux[N]. I don't know what happened that
    > I typed aux[N-1].


    Ah-hah!

    > I hope you experienced programmers forgive me for this typical
    > beginner mistake. Now everything is fine without "-O1" :)


    You say "typical beginner mistake". I say "last-minute emergency panic
    about a kernel release", because that same mistake was made in a hunk of
    kernel network driver code. (Actually, in that case, it was a[N] when
    it should have been a[N+1], and I blame the general API design for getting
    the sense of FOO_MAX wrong, but...)

    Don't feel bad about "wasting" our time by asking an actual question about
    C and then taking the time to follow up on it and learn what was happening.
    That's pretty much why we hang out here...

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Nov 16, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Antonio

    Strange encoding behaviour

    Antonio, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    433
    Antonio
    Dec 29, 2004
  2. Jan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,454
    Mike Treseler
    Dec 16, 2004
  3. David Cantin

    Strange behaviour with perl and apache

    David Cantin, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    Jim Gibson
    Nov 3, 2003
  4. Dennis Johansson
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    503
    Dennis Johansson
    Aug 21, 2003
  5. Andy Chambers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Daniel Dyer
    May 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page