• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stitchs_login

Comparing a negative value against std::vector.size()

10 posts in this topic

Hello community,

I am having a minor issue in my code, I have replaced an Integer variable with the std::vector.size() in a comparison statement (please see below):

[source lang="cpp"]if(selectedOption_ > (optionsList_.size() - 1))
{
selectedOption_ = (optionsList_.size() - 1);
}
else if(selectedOption_ < firstSelectableOption_)
{
// Highlighted option does not trigger as going less than 0.
selectedOption_ = firstSelectableOption_;
}[/source]

Before, I compared SelectedOption to an Integer (numOptions) and this worked as I expected, if it went greater than said number then it would be reset to numOptions, else if it when less than 0(firstSelectableOption), it would be set to zero.

Once I replaced it with size(), if the SelectedOption goes less than zero, it triggers the 'greater-than' clause and sets the SelectedOption equal to whatever the size()-1 is. I have looked through the debugger and the numbers are coming back as expected: SelectedOption becomes -1, and size in this instance being 2. So what is going on here. The quick-fix solution I am using is this:

[source lang="cpp"]if(selectedOption_ < firstSelectableOption_)
{
// Highlighted option does not trigger as going less than 0.
selectedOption_ = firstSelectableOption_;
}
else if(selectedOption_ > (optionsList_.size() -1))
{
selectedOption_ = (optionsList_.size() - 1);
}[/source]

This ensures that the check for going less than zero occurs first, which solves the issue I am having, but does not answer the question it puts forward.

In short, is there something I am missing that would be firing the if-else in reverse order. Also, I have checked and am not setting size equal to something different elsewhere.

Thanks in advance for your time,

Regards,

Stitchs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
std::vector::size is an unsigned type, per the docs. Subtracting 1 from an unsigned 0 value doesn't give you a negative value, it gives you the maximum value the unsigned type can hold. Edit: Furthermore if the negative integer you are trying to compare gets implicitly cast to unsigned int, then it's no longer negative, just very large positive. Edited by JTippetts
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this instance of the class, size is always 2, it is never 0. That did cross my mind at one point, but I thought, as long as my Integer is not unsigned, then this would not be an issue? When would my negative Integer get cast to an unsigned int? Does this happen in the comparison at all?

Regards,

Stitchs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='stitchs' timestamp='1355611034' post='5011059']
When would my negative Integer get cast to an unsigned int? Does this happen in the comparison at all?

Regards,

Stitchs.
[/quote]

Yes.

Your compiler should be warning you about the signed to unsigned comparison, as well. It's a good idea to pay attention to those kinds of warnings, as subtle bugs like this can result.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A possible solution would be to cast your unsigned value (the size_t result from vector<>.size()) to a signed value.
[CODE]if(myInt < (int)vector.size())[/CODE]

Side-effects: if your size_t ever reaches higher than 31^2 (about two billion), your value will likely loop around to -31^2 (around negative two billion).

[hr]

[code]if(selectedOption_ >= int(optionsList_.size()))
{

}
else if(selectedOption_ < firstSelectableOption_)
{

}[/code] Edited by Servant of the Lord
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can fix this simply by moving the -1 on the other side of the inequality as +1, so you'll no longer get underflows.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get it now, Visual Studio wasn't showing me this warning on compilation. I have just performed a clean build, and it is one of the first warnings to show itself. Seems like my initial (if brief) thought actually was the case. Thanks all for your speedy responses, I'll get on the case now.

Regards,

Stitchs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, whack up your warning level to the highest possible (level 4 I think), and fix all of them. If you get warnings from 3rd party headers, you can use #pragma warning(push:####) and #pragma warning(pop) to enable/disable them around specific headers (where #### is the warning you want to disable).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Paradigm Shifter' timestamp='1355614561' post='5011095']
Also, whack up your warning level to the highest possible (level 4 I think), and fix all of them. If you get warnings from 3rd party headers, you can use #pragma warning(push:####) and #pragma warning(pop) to enable/disable them around specific headers (where #### is the warning you want to disable).
[/quote]
In that case I would suggest you also set the flag treat warnings as errors, which forces you to fix them.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[b]Hi![/b]

Visual C++ could show such warning, but the compiler must have set the correct warning level.

Why such strange comparision? Maybe you would construct a bit more complex if.
Such magic values, etc sometimes are unsafe and strange for reading.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0