I am trying to convert NSString to long but I am getting garbage value. Below is my code :
long t1 = [[jsonDict valueForKeyPath:#"detail.amount"]doubleValue] * 1000000000000000000;
long t2 = [[jsonDict valueForKeyPath:#"detail.fee"]doubleValue] * 10000000000000000;
NSLog(#"t1: %ld",t1);
NSLog(#"t2: %ld",t2);
detail.amout = 51.74
detail.fee = 2.72
O/P :
t1: 9223372036854775807 (Getting Garbage value here)
t2: 27200000000000000 (Working fine)
Thanks in advance.
Each number types (int, long, double, float) has limits. For your long 64 bit (because your device is 64bit) number the upper limit is :9,223,372,036,854,775,807 (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9,223,372,036,854,775,807)
In your case, 51.74 * 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 =
51,740,000,000,000,000,000
While Long 64bit only has a maximum of
9,223,372,036,854,775,807
So an overflow happens at 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 and above. Which is what your calculation evaluates into.
Also to note, that what you are doing will also cause problem if you only cater for 64bit long range, because what happens when your app runs on a 32bit (like iPhone 5c or below)?
Generally a bad idea to use large numbers, unless you're doing complex maths. If number accuracies are not critical, then you should consider simplifying the number like 51,740G (G = Giga). etc.
It's because you're storing the product to long type variables t1 and t2.
Use either float or double, and you'll get the correct answer.
Based on C's data types:
Long signed integer type. Capable of containing at least the
[−2,147,483,647, +2,147,483,647] range; thus, it is at least 32
bits in size.
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_data_types
9223372036854775807 is the maximum value of a 64-bit signed long. I deduce that [[jsonDict valueForKeyPath:#"detail.amount"]doubleValue] * 1000000000000000000 is larger than the maximum long value, so when you cast it to long, you get the closest value that long can represent.
As you read, it is not possible with long. Since it looks like you do finance math, you should use NSDecimalNumber instead of double to solve that problem.
Related
Can somebody explain why multiplying by 100 here gives a less accurate result but multiplying by 10 twice gives a more accurate result?
± % sc
Loading development environment (Rails 3.0.1)
>> 129.95 * 100
12994.999999999998
>> 129.95*10
1299.5
>> 129.95*10*10
12995.0
If you do the calculations by hand in double-precision binary, which is limited to 53 significant bits, you'll see what's going on:
129.95 = 1.0000001111100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 2^7
129.95*100 = 1.1001011000010111111111111111111111111111111111111111011 x 2^13
This is 56 significant bits long, so rounded to 53 bits it's
1.1001011000010111111111111111111111111111111111111111 x 2^13, which equals
12994.999999999998181010596454143524169921875
Now 129.95*10 = 1.01000100110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 x 2^10
This is 54 significant bits long, so rounded to 53 bits it's 1.01000100111 x 2^10 = 1299.5
Now 1299.5 * 10 = 1.1001011000011 x 2^13 = 12995.
First off: you are looking at the string representation of the result, not the actual result itself. If you really want to compare the two results, you should format both results explicitly, using String#% and you should format both results the same way.
Secondly, that's just how binary floating point numbers work. They are inexact, they are finite and they are binary. All three mean that you get rounding errors, which generally look totally random, unless you happen to have memorized the entirety of IEEE754 and can recite it backwards in your sleep.
There is no floating point number exactly equal to 129.95. So your language uses a value which is close to it instead. When that value is multiplied by 100, the result is close to 12995, but it just so happens to not equal 12995. (It is also not exactly equal to 100 times the original value it used in place of 129.95.) So your interpreter prints a decimal number which is close to (but not equal to) the value of 129.95 * 100 and which shows you that it is not exactly 12995. It also just so happens that the result 129.95 * 10 is exactly equal to 1299.5. This is mostly luck.
Bottom line is, never expect equality out of any floating point arithmetic, only "closeness".
I'd like to know if it would make any sense to cast/convert a number, parsed from a csv file, e.g. customer id, to a NSString?
Or maybe better a simple int? As I'm quite new to obj-c, I'm not really sure, wether to consistently use the NSxyz types, or use what I'm used to, coming from Java/C/C++.
Actually the value only is stored in a variable, and then loaded into some textfields (which again would imply a conversion back to NSString I guess?).
Would there be any benefit in less memory being used? Let's assume the ids had 6 digits, parsing roughly 10'000-100'000 customers. Same would apply to smaller numbers, e.g. the addresses street number.
In a string, 1 letter == 1 byte, so if you have 6 digits, you are occupying 6 bytes.
An int instead takes generally 2 (short), 3 or 4 (long) bytes. It can arrive also to 8 bytes with an int_64. But, you are limited because for example in the 2 byte case (16 bit) you can consider 2^16 numbers.
In your case you could use an int, but i would use an NSString, also because you need it in your textfield.
An NSInteger is an int. An NSUInteger is an unsigned int.
An NSNumber is an Object (so no primitive) which can store an int, a float, a double or a boolean. So you can store many type of primitive in this type of variable and then use the appropriate:
[number floatValue];
[number boolValue];
...
I'm writing a Wireshark dissector in lua and trying to decode a time-based protocol field.
I've two components 1)
local ref_time = os.time{year=2000, month=1, day=1, hour=0, sec=0}
and 2)
local offset_time = tvbuffer(0:5):bytes()
A 5-Byte (larger than uint32 range) ByteArray() containing the number of milliseconds (in network byte order) since ref_time. Now I'm looking for a human readable date. I didn't know this would be so hard, but 1st it seems I cannot simple add an offset to an os.time value and 2nd the offset exceeds Int32 range ...and most function I tested seem to truncate the exceeding input value.
Any ideas on how I get the date from ref_time and offset_time?
Thank you very much!
Since ref_time is in seconds and offset_time is in milliseconds, just try:
os.date("%c",ref_time+offset_time/1000)
I assume that offset_time is a number. If not, just reconstruct it using arithmetic. Keep in mind that Lua uses doubles for numbers and so a 5-byte integer fits just fine.
I had code in my app that looks like the following. I got some feedback around a bug, when to my horror, I put a debugger on it and found that the MAX between -5 and 0 is -5!
NSString *test = #"short";
int calFailed = MAX(test.length - 10, 0); // returns -5
After looking at the MAX macro, I see that it requires both parameters to be of the same type. In my case, "test.length" is an unsigned int and 0 is a signed int. So a simple cast (for either parameter) fixes the problem.
NSString *test = #"short";
int calExpected = MAX((int)test.length - 10, 0); // returns 0
This seems like a nasty and unexpected side effect of this macro. Is there another built-in method to iOS for performing MIN/MAX where the compiler would have warned about mismatching types? Seems like this SHOULD have been a compile time issue and not something that required a debugger to figure out. I can always write my own, but wanted to see if anybody else had similar issues.
Enabling -Wsign-compare, as suggested by FDinoff's answer is a good idea, but I thought it might be worth explaining the reason behind this in some more detail, as it's a quite common pitfall.
The problem isn't really with the MAX macro in particular, but with a) subtracting from an unsigned integer in a way that leads to an overflow, and b) (as the warning suggests) with how the compiler handles the comparison of signed and unsigned values in general.
The first issue is pretty easy to explain: When you subtract from an unsigned integer and the result would be negative, the result "overflows" to a very large positive value, because an unsigned integer cannot represent negative values. So [#"short" length] - 10 will evaluate to 4294967291.
What might be more surprising is that even without the subtraction, something like MAX([#"short" length], -10) will not yield the correct result (it would evaluate to -10, even though [#"short" length] would be 5, which is obviously larger). This has nothing to do with the macro, something like if ([#"short" length] > -10) { ... } would lead to the same problem (the code in the if-block would not execute).
So the general question is: What happens exactly when you compare an unsigned integer with a signed one (and why is there a warning for that in the first place)? The compiler will convert both values to a common type, according to certain rules that can lead to surprising results.
Quoting from Understand integer conversion rules [cert.org]:
If the type of the operand with signed integer type can represent all of the values of the type of the operand with unsigned integer type, the operand with unsigned integer type is converted to the type of the operand with signed integer type.
Otherwise, both operands are converted to the unsigned integer type corresponding to the type of the operand with signed integer type.
(emphasis mine)
Consider this example:
int s = -1;
unsigned int u = 1;
NSLog(#"%i", s < u);
// -> 0
The result will be 0 (false), even though s (-1) is clearly less then u (1). This happens because both values are converted to unsigned int, as int cannot represent all values that can be contained in an unsigned int.
It gets even more confusing if you change the type of s to long. Then, you'd get the same (incorrect) result on a 32 bit platform (iOS), but in a 64 bit Mac app it would work just fine! (explanation: long is a 64 bit type there, so it can represent all 32 bit unsigned int values.)
So, long story short: Don't compare unsigned and signed integers, especially if the signed value is potentially negative.
You probably don't have enough compiler warnings turned on. If you turn on -Wsign-compare (which can be turned on with -Wextra) you will generate a warning that looks like the following
warning: signed and unsigned type in conditional expression [-Wsign-compare]
This allows you to place the casts in the right places if necessary and you shouldn't need to rewrite the MAX or MIN macros
I've got a strange problem here, and i'm sure it's just something small.
I recieve information about files via JSON (RestKit is doing a good job).
I write the filesize of each file via coredata to a local store.
Afterwards within one of my viewcontrollers i need to sum up the files-sizes of all files in database. I fetch all files and then going through a slope (for) to sum the size up.
The problem is now, the result is always negative!
The coredata entity filesize is of type Integer 32 (filesize is reported in bytes by JSON).
I read the fetchresult in an NSArray allPublicationsToLoad and then try to sum up. The Objects in the NSArray of Type CDPublication have a value filesize of Type NSNumber:
for(int n = 0; n < [allPublicationsToLoad count]; n = n + 1)
{
CDPublication* thePub = [allPublicationsToLoad objectAtIndex:n];
allPublicationsSize = allPublicationsSize + [[thePub filesize] integerValue];
sum = [NSNumber numberWithFloat:([sum floatValue] + [[thePub filesize] floatValue])];
Each single filesize of the single CDPublications objects are positive and correct. Only the sum of all the filesizes ist negative afterwards. There are around 240 objects right now with filesize-values between 4000 and 234.645.434.123.
Can somebody please give me a hit into the right direction !?
Is it the problem that Integer 32 or NSNumber can't hold such a huge range?
Thanks
MadMaxApp
}
The NSNumber object can't hold such a huge number. Because of the way negative numbers are stored the result is negative.
Negative numbers are stored using two's complement, this is done to make addition of positive and negative numbers easier. The range of numbers NSNumber can hold is split in two, the highest half (the int values for which the highest order bit is equal to 1) is considered to be negative, the lowest half (where the highest order bit is equal to 0) are the normal positive numbers. Now, if you add sufficiently large numbers, the result will be in the highest half and thus be interpreted as a negative number. Here's an illustration for the 4-bit integer situation (32 works exactly the same but there would be a lot more 0 and 1 to type;))
With 4 bits you can represent this range of signed integers:
0000 (=0)
0001 (=1)
0010 (=2)
...
0111 (=7)
1000 (=-8)
1001 (=-7)
...
1111 (=-1)
The maximum positive integer you can represent is 7 in this case. If you would add 5 and 4 for example you would get:
0101 + 0100 = 1001
1001 equals -7 when you represent signed integers like this (and not 9, as you would expect). That's the effect you are observing, but on a much larger scale (32 bits)
Your only option to get correct results in this case is to increase the number of bits used to represent your integers so the result won't be in the negative number range of bit combinations. So if 32 bits is not enough (like in your case), you can use a long (64 bits).
[myNumber longLongValue];
I think this has to do with int overflow: very large integers get reinterpreted as negatives when they overflow the size of int (32 bits). Use longLongValue instead of integerValue:
long long allPublicationsSize = 0;
for(int n = 0; n < [allPublicationsToLoad count]; n++) {
CDPublication* thePub = [allPublicationsToLoad objectAtIndex:n];
allPublicationsSize += [[thePub filesize] longLongValue];
}
This is an integer overflow issue associated with use of two's complement arithmetic. For a 32 bit integer there are exactly 232 (4,294,967,296) possible integer values which can be expressed. When using two's complement, the most significant bit is used as a sign bit which allows half of the numbers to represent non-negative integers (when the sign bit is 0) and the other half to represent negative numbers (when the sign bit is 1). This gives an effective range of [-231, 231-1] or [-2,147,483,648, 2,147,483,647].
To overcome this problem for your case, you should consider using a 64-bit integer. This should work well for the range of values you seem to be interested in using. Alternatively, if even 64-bit is not sufficient, you should look for big integer libraries for iOS.