If a negative integer summed with a greater unsigned integer is promoted to unsigned int?












9















After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:



Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"



unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264


He said:




In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.




But if I do something like this:



unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?


As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer to an unsigned integer?










share|improve this question




















  • 10





    As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

    – tkausl
    9 hours ago











  • Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

    – DeiDei
    9 hours ago











  • What result were you expecting instead of 32?

    – Barmar
    6 hours ago
















9















After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:



Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"



unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264


He said:




In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.




But if I do something like this:



unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?


As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer to an unsigned integer?










share|improve this question




















  • 10





    As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

    – tkausl
    9 hours ago











  • Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

    – DeiDei
    9 hours ago











  • What result were you expecting instead of 32?

    – Barmar
    6 hours ago














9












9








9


3






After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:



Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"



unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264


He said:




In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.




But if I do something like this:



unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?


As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer to an unsigned integer?










share|improve this question
















After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:



Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"



unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264


He said:




In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.




But if I do something like this:



unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?


As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer to an unsigned integer?







c++ unsigned-integer






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 44 mins ago









IQV

466412




466412










asked 9 hours ago









Alex24Alex24

1206




1206








  • 10





    As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

    – tkausl
    9 hours ago











  • Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

    – DeiDei
    9 hours ago











  • What result were you expecting instead of 32?

    – Barmar
    6 hours ago














  • 10





    As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

    – tkausl
    9 hours ago











  • Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

    – DeiDei
    9 hours ago











  • What result were you expecting instead of 32?

    – Barmar
    6 hours ago








10




10





As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

– tkausl
9 hours ago





As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. It is.

– tkausl
9 hours ago













Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

– DeiDei
9 hours ago





Google about binary numbers and the way they are represented, in particular signedness. Then all shall become clear.

– DeiDei
9 hours ago













What result were you expecting instead of 32?

– Barmar
6 hours ago





What result were you expecting instead of 32?

– Barmar
6 hours ago












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















17














-10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.






share|improve this answer

































    8














    Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)



    What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.




    • First, i is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.


    • When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.





    As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).





    Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:




    §6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]




    1. Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
      is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
      size of integer 49


    49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
    result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
    type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
    value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.




    I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.



    Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.






    share|improve this answer


























    • Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

      – Baum mit Augen
      9 hours ago











    • afaik it does and it is well defined

      – bolov
      9 hours ago






    • 3





      @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

      – Garr Godfrey
      9 hours ago






    • 1





      it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

      – Garr Godfrey
      8 hours ago






    • 2





      @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

      – bolov
      5 hours ago





















    3















    "In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"




    yes this is true




    unsigned u = 42;
    int i = -10;
    std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?



    Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned






    share|improve this answer































      3














      i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.



      Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2n, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get



      [42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],



      with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2n.






      share|improve this answer


























      • Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

        – JAD
        2 mins ago



















      2














      This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)



      -10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
      42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A


      Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.



      In the first case, it is basically the same:



      -42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
      10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A


      Add those together and get FFFFFFE0



      FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.






      share|improve this answer























        Your Answer






        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
        StackExchange.snippets.init();
        });
        });
        }, "code-snippets");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "1"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54190113%2fif-a-negative-integer-summed-with-a-greater-unsigned-integer-is-promoted-to-unsi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        17














        -10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.






        share|improve this answer






























          17














          -10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.






          share|improve this answer




























            17












            17








            17







            -10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.






            share|improve this answer















            -10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 8 hours ago

























            answered 9 hours ago









            NathanOliverNathanOliver

            88.8k15120186




            88.8k15120186

























                8














                Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)



                What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.




                • First, i is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.


                • When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.





                As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).





                Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:




                §6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]




                1. Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
                  is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
                  size of integer 49


                49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
                result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
                type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
                value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.




                I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.



                Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                  – Baum mit Augen
                  9 hours ago











                • afaik it does and it is well defined

                  – bolov
                  9 hours ago






                • 3





                  @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  9 hours ago






                • 1





                  it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                  – bolov
                  5 hours ago


















                8














                Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)



                What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.




                • First, i is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.


                • When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.





                As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).





                Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:




                §6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]




                1. Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
                  is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
                  size of integer 49


                49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
                result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
                type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
                value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.




                I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.



                Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                  – Baum mit Augen
                  9 hours ago











                • afaik it does and it is well defined

                  – bolov
                  9 hours ago






                • 3





                  @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  9 hours ago






                • 1





                  it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                  – bolov
                  5 hours ago
















                8












                8








                8







                Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)



                What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.




                • First, i is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.


                • When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.





                As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).





                Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:




                §6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]




                1. Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
                  is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
                  size of integer 49


                49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
                result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
                type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
                value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.




                I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.



                Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.






                share|improve this answer















                Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)



                What is happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result is ends up being mathematically correct.




                • First, i is converted to unsigned and as per wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.


                • When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.





                As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).





                Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:




                §6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]




                1. Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
                  is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
                  size of integer 49


                49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
                result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
                type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
                value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.




                I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to signify values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.



                Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 8 hours ago









                ruakh

                124k13199252




                124k13199252










                answered 9 hours ago









                bolovbolov

                30.9k669128




                30.9k669128













                • Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                  – Baum mit Augen
                  9 hours ago











                • afaik it does and it is well defined

                  – bolov
                  9 hours ago






                • 3





                  @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  9 hours ago






                • 1





                  it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                  – bolov
                  5 hours ago





















                • Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                  – Baum mit Augen
                  9 hours ago











                • afaik it does and it is well defined

                  – bolov
                  9 hours ago






                • 3





                  @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  9 hours ago






                • 1





                  it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                  – Garr Godfrey
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                  – bolov
                  5 hours ago



















                Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                – Baum mit Augen
                9 hours ago





                Unsigned arithmetic does not overflow.

                – Baum mit Augen
                9 hours ago













                afaik it does and it is well defined

                – bolov
                9 hours ago





                afaik it does and it is well defined

                – bolov
                9 hours ago




                3




                3





                @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                – Garr Godfrey
                9 hours ago





                @BaummitAugen what? of course it overflows. Add two large unsigned ints, you can't represent a number that doesn't fit in the number format

                – Garr Godfrey
                9 hours ago




                1




                1





                it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                – Garr Godfrey
                8 hours ago





                it's a bit ridiculous to argue losing the high order bits doesn't count as overflow just because the low order bits are still accurate.

                – Garr Godfrey
                8 hours ago




                2




                2





                @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                – bolov
                5 hours ago







                @curiousguy I've heard some ppl (experts) saying that having wraparound behavior for unsigned was a bad decision in hindsight. They main reason however was the optimization it inhibits. They argued for regular unsigned to have undefined behavior on overflow and to exist some other data type that had wraparound behavior. But it is what it is.

                – bolov
                5 hours ago













                3















                "In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"




                yes this is true




                unsigned u = 42;
                int i = -10;
                std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?



                Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned






                share|improve this answer




























                  3















                  "In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"




                  yes this is true




                  unsigned u = 42;
                  int i = -10;
                  std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?



                  Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned






                  share|improve this answer


























                    3












                    3








                    3








                    "In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"




                    yes this is true




                    unsigned u = 42;
                    int i = -10;
                    std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?



                    Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned






                    share|improve this answer














                    "In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"




                    yes this is true




                    unsigned u = 42;
                    int i = -10;
                    std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?



                    Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 9 hours ago









                    brunobruno

                    3,3141716




                    3,3141716























                        3














                        i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.



                        Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2n, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get



                        [42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],



                        with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2n.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                          – JAD
                          2 mins ago
















                        3














                        i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.



                        Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2n, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get



                        [42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],



                        with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2n.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                          – JAD
                          2 mins ago














                        3












                        3








                        3







                        i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.



                        Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2n, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get



                        [42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],



                        with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2n.






                        share|improve this answer















                        i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.



                        Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2n, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get



                        [42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],



                        with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2n.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 9 hours ago

























                        answered 9 hours ago









                        Baum mit AugenBaum mit Augen

                        40.4k12115147




                        40.4k12115147













                        • Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                          – JAD
                          2 mins ago



















                        • Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                          – JAD
                          2 mins ago

















                        Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                        – JAD
                        2 mins ago





                        Shouldn't that be ℤ mod 2n?

                        – JAD
                        2 mins ago











                        2














                        This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)



                        -10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
                        42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A


                        Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.



                        In the first case, it is basically the same:



                        -42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
                        10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A


                        Add those together and get FFFFFFE0



                        FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          2














                          This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)



                          -10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
                          42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A


                          Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.



                          In the first case, it is basically the same:



                          -42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
                          10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A


                          Add those together and get FFFFFFE0



                          FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            2












                            2








                            2







                            This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)



                            -10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
                            42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A


                            Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.



                            In the first case, it is basically the same:



                            -42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
                            10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A


                            Add those together and get FFFFFFE0



                            FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.






                            share|improve this answer













                            This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)



                            -10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
                            42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A


                            Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.



                            In the first case, it is basically the same:



                            -42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
                            10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A


                            Add those together and get FFFFFFE0



                            FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 9 hours ago









                            Garr GodfreyGarr Godfrey

                            4,03711518




                            4,03711518






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54190113%2fif-a-negative-integer-summed-with-a-greater-unsigned-integer-is-promoted-to-unsi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Plaza Victoria

                                Puebla de Zaragoza

                                Musa