CODEWITHSUNDEEP
cstrcmp
beatgammit
beatgammit

Reputation: 20225

When will strcmp not return -1, 0 or 1?

From the man page:

The strcmp() and strncmp() functions return an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if s1 (or the first n bytes thereof) is found, respectively, to be less than, to match, or be greater than s2.

Example code in C (prints -15 on my machine, swapping test1 and test2 inverts the value):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main() {
    char* test1 = "hello";
    char* test2 = "world";
    printf("%d\n", strcmp(test1, test2));
}

I found this code (taken from this question) that relies on the values of strcmp being something other than -1, 0 and 1 (it uses the return value in qsort). To me, this is terrible style and depends on undocumented features.

I guess I have two, related questions:

Edit:

After leaving my computer for 5 minutes, I realized that there is in fact no error with the code in question. I struck out the parts that I figured out before reading the comments/answers, but I left them there to keep the comments relevant. I think this is still an interesting question and may cause hiccups for programmers used to other languages that always return -1, 0 or 1 (e.g. Python seems to do this, but it's not documented that way).

FWIW, I think that relying on something other than the documented behavior is bad style.

Upvotes: 2

Views: 10811

Answers (7)

Mike
Mike

Reputation: 49463

• Is there something in the C standard that defines what the return values are besides less than, greater than, or equal to zero? If not, what does the standard implementation do?

No, as you mentioned yourself the man page says less than, equal to, or greater than zero and that's what the standard says as well.

• Is the return value consistent across the Linux, Windows and the BSDs?

No.

On Linux (OpenSuSE 12.1, kernel 3.1) with gcc, I get -15/15 depending on if test1 or test2 is first. On Windows 7 (VS 2010) I get -1/1.

Based on the loose definition of strcmp(), both are fine.

...that relies on the values of strcmp being something other than -1, 0 and 1 (it uses the return value in qsort).

An interesting side note for you... if you take a look at the qsort() man page, the example there is pretty much the same as the Bell code you posted using strcmp(). The reason being the comparator function that qsort() requires is actually a great fit for the return from strcmp():

The comparison function must return an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if the first argument is considered to be respectively less than, equal to, or greater than the second.

Upvotes: 4

Omkant
Omkant

Reputation: 9204

In the C99 standard, §7.21.4.2 The strcmp function:

The strcmp function returns an integer greater than, equal to, or less than zero, accordingly as the string pointed to by s1 is greater than, equal to, or less than the string pointed to by s2.

Emphasis added.

It means the standard doesn't guarantee about the -1, 0 or 1; it may vary according to operating systems.

The value you are getting is the difference between w and h which is 15.

In your case hello and world so 'h'-'w' = -15 < 0 and that's why strcmp returns -15.

Upvotes: 6

user529758
user529758

Reputation:

Is there something in the C standard that defines what the return values are besides less than, greater than, or equal to zero?

No. The tightest constraint is that it should be zero, less than zero or more than zero, as specified in the documentation of this particular function.

If not, what does the standard implementation do?

There's no such thing as "the standard implementation". Even if there was, it would probably just

return zero, less than zero or more than zero;

:-)

Is the return value consistent across the Linux, Windows and the BSDs?

I can confirm that it's consistent across Linux and OS X as of 10.7.4 (specifically, it's -1, 0 or +1). I have no idea about Windows, but I bet Microsoft guys use -2 and +3 just to break code :P

Also, let me also point out that you have completely misunderstood what the code does.

I found this code (taken from this question) that relies on the values of strcmp being something other than -1, 0 and 1 (it uses the return value in qsort). To me, this is terrible style and depends on undocumented features.

No, it actually doesn't. The C standard library is designed with consistency and ease of use in mind. That is, what qsort() requires is that its comparator function returns a negative or a positive number or zero - exactly what strcmp() is guaranteed to do. So this is not "terrible style", it's perfectly standards-conformant code which does not depend upon undocumented features.

Upvotes: 7

Pengfei Liu
Pengfei Liu

Reputation: 91

In this page:

The strcmp() function compares the string pointed to by s1 to the string pointed to by s2. The sign of a non-zero return value is determined by the sign of the difference between the values of the first pair of bytes (both interpreted as type unsigned char) that differ in the strings being compared.

Here is an implementation of strcmp in FreeBSD.

#include <string.h>

/*
 * Compare strings.
 */
int
strcmp(s1, s2)
    register const char *s1, *s2;
{
    while (*s1 == *s2++)
        if (*s1++ == 0)
            return (0);
    return (*(const unsigned char *)s1 - *(const unsigned char *)(s2 - 1));
}

Upvotes: 1

R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE

Reputation: 215367

In reality, the return value of strcmp is likely to be the difference between the values of the bytes at the first position that differed, simply because returning this difference is a lot more efficient than doing an additional conditional branch to convert it to -1 or 1. Unfortunately, some broken software has been known to assume the result fits in 8 bits, leading to serious vulnerabilities. In short, you should never use anything but the sign of the result.

For details on the issues, read the article I linked above:

https://communities.coverity.com/blogs/security/2012/07/19/more-defects-like-the-mysql-memcmp-vulnerability

Upvotes: 1

NPE
NPE

Reputation: 500663

There's nothing in the C standard that talks about the value returned by strcmp() (that is, other than the sign of that value):

7.21.4.2 The strcmp function

Synopsis

#include <string.h>
int strcmp(const char *s1, const char *s2);

Description

The strcmp function compares the string pointed to by s1 to the string pointed to by s2.

Returns

The strcmp function returns an integer greater than, equal to, or less than zero, accordingly as the string pointed to by s1 is greater than, equal to, or less than the string pointed to by s2.

It is therefore pretty clear that using anything other than the sign of the returned value is a poor practice.

Upvotes: 0

LtWorf
LtWorf

Reputation: 7598

From the manual page:

RETURN VALUE The strcmp() and strncmp() functions return an integer less than, equal to, or greater than zero if s1 (or the first n bytes thereof) is found, respectively, to be less than, to match, or be greater than s2.

It only specifies that it is greater or less than 0, doesn't say anything about specific values, those are implementation specific i suppose.

CONFORMING TO SVr4, 4.3BSD, C89, C99. This says in which standards it is included. The function must exist and behave as specified, but the specification doesn't say anything about the actual returned values, so you can't rely on them.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions