Programmer Humor @programming.dev Gollum @feddit.de 1y ago

I mean it could be right

Bumba's Shitpost Palace @boomer.casino bumba @boomer.casino 1y ago

6 0

19 comments

When the metric is lines of code
- When the company tries to be cheeky and starts to count characters instead
  
  Rename c to completelyUnimportantVariableThatISoLongBecauseIGetPaidMore
++x;
- The underutilized ~~post~~ pre increment operator.
The third one is just (x=x+1), because the middle bit is just always false and can be ignored.
- What if int overflows? Is it still false?
  
  Still false, thanks to compiler optimizations. Remember that integer overflow is UB. (unless you're using unsigned int or a programming language which strictly defines integer overflow, possibly as an error)
  
  P.S.: Assuming this is C/C++
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.)
- 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)
  
  It will not "overflow". Signed integer overflow is undefined behavior. The compiler could remove the whole loop or do anything else imaginable (or not).
  
  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.)
I'm fairly certain that last one is UB in C. The result of an assignment operator is not an lvalue, and even if it were it's UB (at least in C99) to modify the stored value of an object more than once between two adjacent sequence points. It might work in C++, though.
- That was my first thought when trying to figure out what it did
You forgot ++x.

19 comments