Programmer Humor

19315 readers

47 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

[email protected]

254

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

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] TootSweet 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 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 11 months ago (5 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)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months 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).

[–] TootSweet 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

TIL!

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months 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).

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)