Page 1 of 7
Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:09 pm
by Rebel
Today I had a new one, took me hours to see it.
While parsing a PGN file looking for the moves of a certain engine I wrote the following (pseudo) code:
Code: Select all
printf ("Type engine"); gets(player);
if ((process_pgn_file())!=0) { all done }
if (strcmp(player,white)==0) engine=0; // decide the color
if (strcmp(player,black)==0) engine=1;
// Processing the moves
for (x=0; x<=MAX_MOVES; x++) {
if (x&1 != engine) continue;
do_something_with_the_move_of_player();
}
So what was wrong?
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:36 pm
by brianr
Well, a few of things look like potential issues.
A) the "player" might not match either one for the current game being processed.
B) MAX_MOVES looks like a constant, and not the number of moves in the current game.
C) Loop depends on how move numbers are counted (full moves v half moves).
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:12 pm
by elpapa
x <= MAX_MOVES
x < MAX_MOVES
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:41 pm
by mar
aside from what has been mentioned already, C operator precedence:
& has lower priority than != (I never understood why bitwise ops are lower than relational to be honest),
so the expression evaluates as x & (1 != engine) instead of the intended (x & 1) != engine
or maybe it was intended?
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:52 pm
by Rebel
mar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:41 pm
aside from what has been mentioned already,
These were deliberately left out in the
pseudo code but are covered in the real code, so those are not the issue.
mar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:41 pmC operator precedence:
& has lower priority than != (I never understood why bitwise ops are lower than relational to be honest),
so the expression evaluates as x & (1 != engine) instead of the intended (x & 1) != engine
or maybe it was intended?
You got it.
if (x&1 != engine) continue;
is bad C code, the x&1 only affects the flags.
The right way of doing is:
Code: Select all
y = x & 1;
if (y != engine) continue;
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:43 pm
by hgm
Nothing wring with
if((x&1) != engine) ...
If you dislike parentheses, you could also do
if(x-engine & 1) ...
I wouldn't say adding unnecessary dummy variables is "the right way to do it".
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:30 pm
by Sesse
Rebel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:09 pm
Today I had a new one, took me hours to see it.
Why didn't your compiler warn you?
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:21 pm
by Rebel
Sesse wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:30 pm
Rebel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:09 pm
Today I had a new one, took me hours to see it.
Why didn't your compiler warn you?
I asked myself the same question.
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:01 pm
by lauriet
I've spotted the error. You are using C.
It's like using the large hadron collide to change a flat tyre.
Re: Writing bugs
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:05 pm
by Sven
Rebel wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:52 pm
is bad C code, the x&1 only affects the flags.
Just to make it clear for all those who are not fully aware of the consequences of this bug: the expression "x & (1 != engine)" is evaluated differently from the intended "(x & 1) != engine" if engine=1 and x is an even number (including x=0). In all three other combinations it "works by accident".