• TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    for (int y = MIN_INT; y <= 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.)

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

          • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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).

      • TootSweet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 < 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: <
        

        Inline: <

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

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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