As a hobby project I have been developing an IDE for Chef, an esoteric programming language. While writing various test programs in Chef I've realised that implementing a simple sort algorithm, or even comparing two integers to see which one is greater, is a major challenge when the only compare-and-branch statement in the language is a loop which will repeat while a number is non zero. For example:
Dissolve the sugar. <-- execute loop if value of 'sugar' is non zero
Add flour to mixing bowl. <-- add value of 'flour' into mixing bowl
Set aside. <-- break out of the loop
Stir until dissolved. <-- mark the end of the loop
I do have a working solution to compare two integers in Chef, but it is 40 lines long!
Here is an equivalent of my approach in Java, which most will find more readable than the Chef code I wrote :-)
public static void main(String[] args) {
int first = 100;
int second = 200;
int looper = 1;
int tester;
int difference = first - second;
int inverse = difference * -1;
while (looper != 0) {
difference -= 1;
inverse -= 1;
tester = 1;
while (difference != 0) {
tester--;
break;
}
while (tester != 0) {
System.out.println("First is bigger");
exit(1);
}
tester = 1;
while (inverse != 0) {
tester--;
break;
}
while (tester != 0) {
System.out.println("Second is bigger");
exit(1);
}
}
}
My question is, what's the best way of comparing two numbers when all I have is a loop while non-zero ?
Related
I have been working on an exercise from google's dev tech guide. It is called Compression and Decompression you can check the following link to get the description of the problem Challenge Description.
Here is my code for the solution:
public static String decompressV2 (String string, int start, int times) {
String result = "";
for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) {
inner:
{
for (int j = start; j < string.length(); j++) {
if (isNumeric(string.substring(j, j + 1))) {
String num = string.substring(j, j + 1);
int times2 = Integer.parseInt(num);
String temp = decompressV2(string, j + 2, times2);
result = result + temp;
int next_j = find_next(string, j + 2);
j = next_j;
continue;
}
if (string.substring(j, j + 1).equals("]")) { // Si es un bracket cerrado
break inner;
}
result = result + string.substring(j,j+1);
}
}
}
return result;
}
public static int find_next(String string, int start) {
int count = 0;
for (int i = start; i < string.length(); i++) {
if (string.substring(i, i+1).equals("[")) {
count= count + 1;
}
if (string.substring(i, i +1).equals("]") && count> 0) {
count = count- 1;
continue;
}
if (string.substring(i, i +1).equals("]") && count== 0) {
return i;
}
}
return -111111;
}
I will explain a little bit about the inner workings of my approach. It is a basic solution involves use of simple recursion and loops.
So, let's start from the beggining with a simple decompression:
DevTech.decompressV2("2[3[a]b]", 0, 1);
As you can see, the 0 indicates that it has to iterate over the string at index 0, and the 1 indicates that the string has to be evaluated only once: 1[ 2[3[a]b] ]
The core here is that everytime you encounter a number you call the algorithm again(recursively) and continue where the string insides its brackets ends, that's the find_next function for.
When it finds a close brackets, the inner loop breaks, that's the way I choose to make the stop sign.
I think that would be the main idea behind the algorithm, if you read the code closely you'll get the full picture.
So here are some of my concerns about the way I've written the solution:
I could not find a more clean solution to tell the algorithm were to go next if it finds a number. So I kind of hardcoded it with the find_next function. Is there a way to do this more clean inside the decompress func ?
About performance, It wastes a lot of time by doing the same thing again, when you have a number bigger than 1 at the begging of a bracket.
I am relatively to programming so maybe this code also needs an improvement not in the idea, but in the ways It's written. So would be very grateful to get some suggestions.
This is the approach I figure out but I am sure there are a couple more, I could not think of anyone but It would be great if you could tell your ideas.
In the description it tells you some things that you should be awared of when developing the solutions. They are: handling non-repeated strings, handling repetitions inside, not doing the same job twice, not copying too much. Are these covered by my approach ?
And the last point It's about tets cases, I know that confidence is very important when developing solutions, and the best way to give confidence to an algorithm is test cases. I tried a few and they all worked as expected. But what techniques do you recommend for developing test cases. Are there any softwares?
So that would be all guys, I am new to the community so I am open to suggestions about the how to improve the quality of the question. Cheers!
Your solution involves a lot of string copying that really slows it down. Instead of returning strings that you concatenate, you should pass a StringBuilder into every call and append substrings onto that.
That means you can use your return value to indicate the position to continue scanning from.
You're also parsing repeated parts of the source string more than once.
My solution looks like this:
public static String decompress(String src)
{
StringBuilder dest = new StringBuilder();
_decomp2(dest, src, 0);
return dest.toString();
}
private static int _decomp2(StringBuilder dest, String src, int pos)
{
int num=0;
while(pos < src.length()) {
char c = src.charAt(pos++);
if (c == ']') {
break;
}
if (c>='0' && c<='9') {
num = num*10 + (c-'0');
} else if (c=='[') {
int startlen = dest.length();
pos = _decomp2(dest, src, pos);
if (num<1) {
// 0 repetitions -- delete it
dest.setLength(startlen);
} else {
// copy output num-1 times
int copyEnd = startlen + (num-1) * (dest.length()-startlen);
for (int i=startlen; i<copyEnd; ++i) {
dest.append(dest.charAt(i));
}
}
num=0;
} else {
// regular char
dest.append(c);
num=0;
}
}
return pos;
}
I would try to return a tuple that also contains the next index where decompression should continue from. Then we can have a recursion that concatenates the current part with the rest of the block in the current recursion depth.
Here's JavaScript code. It takes some thought to encapsulate the order of operations that reflects the rules.
function f(s, i=0){
if (i == s.length)
return ['', i];
// We might start with a multiplier
let m = '';
while (!isNaN(s[i]))
m = m + s[i++];
// If we have a multiplier, we'll
// also have a nested expression
if (s[i] == '['){
let result = '';
const [word, nextIdx] = f(s, i + 1);
for (let j=0; j<Number(m); j++)
result = result + word;
const [rest, end] = f(s, nextIdx);
return [result + rest, end]
}
// Otherwise, we may have a word,
let word = '';
while (isNaN(s[i]) && s[i] != ']' && i < s.length)
word = word + s[i++];
// followed by either the end of an expression
// or another multiplier
const [rest, end] = s[i] == ']' ? ['', i + 1] : f(s, i);
return [word + rest, end];
}
var strs = [
'2[3[a]b]',
'10[a]',
'3[abc]4[ab]c',
'2[2[a]g2[r]]'
];
for (const s of strs){
console.log(s);
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(s)));
console.log('');
}
I am researching about fuzzing approaches, and I want to be sure which approach is suitable for Race Condition problem. Therefor I have a question about race condition itself.
Let's suppose we have a global variable and some threads have access to it without any restriction. How can we trigger the existing race condition? Is it enough to run just the function that uses the global variable with several threads? I mean just running the function will trigger race condition anyway?
Here, I put some code, and I know it has race condition problem. I want to know which inputs should give the functions to trigger the corresponding race condition problem.
#include<thread>
#include<vector>
#include<iostream>
#include<experimental/filesystem>
#include<Windows.h>
#include<atomic>
using namespace std;
namespace fs = experimental::filesystem;
volatile int totalSum;
//atomic<int> totalSum;
volatile int* numbersArray;
void threadProc(int startIndex, int endIndex)
{
Sleep(300);
for(int i = startIndex; i < endIndex; i++)
{
totalSum += numbersArray[i];
}
}
void performAddition(int maxNum, int threadCount)
{
totalSum = 0;
numbersArray = new int[maxNum];
for(int i = 0; i < maxNum; i++)
{
numbersArray[i] = i + 1;
}
int numbersPerThread = maxNum / threadCount;
vector<thread> workerThreads;
for(int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
int startIndex = i * numbersPerThread;
int endIndex = startIndex + numbersPerThread;
if (i == threadCount - 1)
endIndex = maxNum;
workerThreads.emplace_back(threadProc, startIndex, endIndex);
}
for(int i = 0; i < workerThreads.size(); i++)
{
workerThreads[i].join();
}
delete[] numbersArray;
}
void printUsage(char* progname)
{
cout << "usage: " << fs::path(progname).filename() << " maxNum threadCount\t with 1<maxNum<=10000, 0<threadCount<=maxNum" << endl;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
if(argc != 3)
{
printUsage(argv[0]);
return -1;
}
long int maxNum = strtol(argv[1], nullptr, 10);
long int threadCount = strtol(argv[2], nullptr, 10);
if(maxNum <= 1 || maxNum > 10000 || threadCount <= 0 || threadCount > maxNum)
{
printUsage(argv[0]);
return -2;
}
performAddition(maxNum, threadCount);
cout << "Result: " << totalSum << " (soll: " << (maxNum * (maxNum + 1))/2 << ")" << endl;
return totalSum;
}
Thanks for your help
There may be many cases of race conditions. One of example for your case:
one thread:
reads commonly accessible variable (1)
increments it (2)
sets the common member variable to resulting value (to 2)
second thread starts just after the first thread read the common value
it read the same value (1)
incremented the value it read. (2)
then writes the calculated value to common member variable at the same time as first one. (2)
As a result
the member value was incremented only by one (to value of 2) , but it should increment by two (to value of 3) since two threads were acting on it.
Testing race conditions:
for your purpose (in the above example) you can detect race condition when you get different result than expected.
Triggerring
if you may want the described situation always to happen for the purpose of - you will need to coordinate the work of two threads. This will allow you to do your testing
Nevertheless coordination of two threads will violate definition race condition if it is defined as: "A race condition or race hazard is the behavior of an electronics, software, or other system where the system's substantive behavior is dependent on the sequence or timing of other uncontrollable events.". So you need to know what you want, and in summary race condition is an unwanted behavior, that in your case you want to happen what can make sense for testing purpose.
If you are asking generally - when a race condition can occur - it depends on your software design (e.g you can have shared atomic integers which are ok to be used), hardware design (eg. variables stored in temporary registers) and generally luck.
Hope this helps,
Witold
I've completed about half of my assignment where I have to count the "chickens" in a string, remove the chickens, and return the amount of times I have to remove them.
public static int countChickens(String word)
{
int val = word.indexOf("chicken");
int count = 0;
if(val > -1){
count++;
word = word.substring(val + 1);
//I'm aware the following line doesn't work. It's my best guess.
//word.remove.indexOf("chicken");
val = word.indexOf("chicken");
}
return count;
}
As is, the program counts the correct amount of chickens in the word itself. (Sending it "afunchickenhaschickenfun" returns 2.) However, I need it to be able to return 2 if I send it something like "chichickencken" because it removed the first chicken, and then the second chicken came into play. How do I do the remove part?
Not tested and writen in sudo code, but should give you a better idea on a way to approach this.
int numberOfChickens = 0;
public void CountAndReplaceChicken(string word)
{
int initCheck = word.indexOf("chicken");
if (initCheck > -1)
{
word = word.remove.indexOf("chicken"); // not sure about the syntax in Eclipse but given you figure this part out
numberOfChickens++;
int recursionCheck = word.indexOf("chicken");
if (recursionCheck > -1)
CountAndReplaceChicken(word);
}
}
Okay, the teacher showed us how to do it a few days later. If I understood David Lee's code right, this is just a simplified way of what he did.
public static int countChickens(String word)
{
int val = word.indexOf("chicken");
if(val > -1){
return 1 + countChickens(word.substring(0, val) + word.substring(val + 7));
}
return 0;
}
I am trying to count two binary numbers from string. The maximum number of counting digits have to be 253. Short numbers works, but when I add there some longer numbers, the output is wrong. The example of bad result is "10100101010000111111" with "000011010110000101100010010011101010001101011100000000111000000000001000100101101111101000111001000101011010010111000110".
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
using namespace std;
bool isBinary(string b1,string b2);
int main()
{
string b1,b2;
long binary1,binary2;
int i = 0, remainder = 0, sum[254];
cout<<"Get two binary numbers:"<<endl;
cin>>b1>>b2;
binary1=atol(b1.c_str());
binary2=atol(b2.c_str());
if(isBinary(b1,b2)==true){
while (binary1 != 0 || binary2 != 0){
sum[i++] =(binary1 % 10 + binary2 % 10 + remainder) % 2;
remainder =(binary1 % 10 + binary2 % 10 + remainder) / 2;
binary1 = binary1 / 10;
binary2 = binary2 / 10;
}
if (remainder != 0){
sum[i++] = remainder;
}
--i;
cout<<"Result: ";
while (i >= 0){
cout<<sum[i--];
}
cout<<endl;
}else cout<<"Wrong input"<<endl;
return 0;
}
bool isBinary(string b1,string b2){
bool rozhodnuti1,rozhodnuti2;
for (int i = 0; i < b1.length();i++) {
if (b1[i]!='0' && b1[i]!='1') {
rozhodnuti1=false;
break;
}else rozhodnuti1=true;
}
for (int k = 0; k < b2.length();k++) {
if (b2[k]!='0' && b2[k]!='1') {
rozhodnuti2=false;
break;
}else rozhodnuti2=true;
}
if(rozhodnuti1==false || rozhodnuti2==false){ return false;}
else{ return true;}
}
One of the problems might be here: sum[i++]
This expression, as it is, first returns the value of i and then increases it by one.
Did you do it on purporse?
Change it to ++i.
It'd help if you could also post the "bad" output, so that we can try to move backward through the code starting from it.
EDIT 2015-11-7_17:10
Just to be sure everything was correct, I've added a cout to check what binary1 and binary2 contain after you assing them the result of the atol function: they contain the integer numbers 547284487 and 18333230, which obviously dont represent the correct binary-to-integer transposition of the two 01 strings you presented in your post.
Probably they somehow exceed the capacity of atol.
Also, the result of your "math" operations bring to an even stranger result, which is 6011111101, which obviously doesnt make any sense.
What do you mean, exactly, when you say you want to count these two numbers? Maybe you want to make a sum? I guess that's it.
But then, again, what you got there is two signed integer numbers and not two binaries, which means those %10 and %2 operations are (probably) misused.
EDIT 2015-11-07_17:20
I've tried to use your program with small binary strings and it actually works; with small binary strings.
It's a fact(?), at this point, that atol cant handle numerical strings that long.
My suggestion: use char arrays instead of strings and replace 0 and 1 characters with numerical values (if (bin1[i]){bin1[i]=1;}else{bin1[i]=0}) with which you'll be able to perform all the math operations you want (you've already written a working sum function, after all).
Once done with the math, you can just convert the char array back to actual characters for 0 and 1 and cout it on the screen.
EDIT 2015-11-07_17:30
Tested atol on my own: it correctly converts only strings that are up to 10 characters long.
Anything beyond the 10th character makes the function go crazy.
public void DoSomething(byte[] array, byte[] array2, int start, int counter)
{
int length = array.Length;
int index = 0;
while (count >= needleLen)
{
index = Array.IndexOf(array, array2[0], start, count - length + 1);
int i = 0;
int p = 0;
for (i = 0, p = index; i < length; i++, p++)
{
if (array[p] != array2[i])
{
break;
}
}
Given that your for loop appears to be using a loop body dependent on ordering, it's most likely not a candidate for parallelization.
However, you aren't showing the "work" involved here, so it's difficult to tell what it's doing. Since the loop relies on both i and p, and it appears that they would vary independently, it's unlikely to be rewritten using a simple Parallel.For without reworking or rethinking your algorithm.
In order for a loop body to be a good candidate for parallelization, it typically needs to be order independent, and have no ordering constraints. The fact that you're basing your loop on two independent variables suggests that these requirements are not valid in this algorithm.