Iterative Fibonacci sequence
I implemented a function that prints all the numbers from the Fibonacci sequence until max_num. The minimum value allowed is 0 (so, fib(0) prints 1). It works until 92, and I want to know how to improve the code, in general.
void fib(unsigned int max_num)
{
unsigned long fib_num = 1;
unsigned long fib_temp = 0;
size_t count = 0;
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
for (; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
}
beginner c fibonacci-sequence
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
add a comment |
I implemented a function that prints all the numbers from the Fibonacci sequence until max_num. The minimum value allowed is 0 (so, fib(0) prints 1). It works until 92, and I want to know how to improve the code, in general.
void fib(unsigned int max_num)
{
unsigned long fib_num = 1;
unsigned long fib_temp = 0;
size_t count = 0;
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
for (; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
}
beginner c fibonacci-sequence
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
add a comment |
I implemented a function that prints all the numbers from the Fibonacci sequence until max_num. The minimum value allowed is 0 (so, fib(0) prints 1). It works until 92, and I want to know how to improve the code, in general.
void fib(unsigned int max_num)
{
unsigned long fib_num = 1;
unsigned long fib_temp = 0;
size_t count = 0;
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
for (; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
}
beginner c fibonacci-sequence
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
I implemented a function that prints all the numbers from the Fibonacci sequence until max_num. The minimum value allowed is 0 (so, fib(0) prints 1). It works until 92, and I want to know how to improve the code, in general.
void fib(unsigned int max_num)
{
unsigned long fib_num = 1;
unsigned long fib_temp = 0;
size_t count = 0;
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
for (; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
}
beginner c fibonacci-sequence
beginner c fibonacci-sequence
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
asked Aug 22 '16 at 21:40
Lúcio Cardoso
447314
447314
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Consider documenting this function with something like doxygen. At a quick glance, your function can be interpreted two different ways: Print out fib(0), fib(1), ..., or print out all Fibonacci numbers less than or equal to max_num. Documentation will clarify that.
max_num will never be negative. It is defined as an unsigned int, which means it can never hold a negative value. So this:
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
will never happen. (Try calling fib(-2), see what happens)
(Optional) Put size_t count = 0 inside the loop if you can? (You may have to add -std=c99 or something like that to make it work)
for (size_t count = 0; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, thefor-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139400%2fiterative-fibonacci-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Consider documenting this function with something like doxygen. At a quick glance, your function can be interpreted two different ways: Print out fib(0), fib(1), ..., or print out all Fibonacci numbers less than or equal to max_num. Documentation will clarify that.
max_num will never be negative. It is defined as an unsigned int, which means it can never hold a negative value. So this:
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
will never happen. (Try calling fib(-2), see what happens)
(Optional) Put size_t count = 0 inside the loop if you can? (You may have to add -std=c99 or something like that to make it work)
for (size_t count = 0; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, thefor-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
add a comment |
Consider documenting this function with something like doxygen. At a quick glance, your function can be interpreted two different ways: Print out fib(0), fib(1), ..., or print out all Fibonacci numbers less than or equal to max_num. Documentation will clarify that.
max_num will never be negative. It is defined as an unsigned int, which means it can never hold a negative value. So this:
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
will never happen. (Try calling fib(-2), see what happens)
(Optional) Put size_t count = 0 inside the loop if you can? (You may have to add -std=c99 or something like that to make it work)
for (size_t count = 0; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, thefor-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
add a comment |
Consider documenting this function with something like doxygen. At a quick glance, your function can be interpreted two different ways: Print out fib(0), fib(1), ..., or print out all Fibonacci numbers less than or equal to max_num. Documentation will clarify that.
max_num will never be negative. It is defined as an unsigned int, which means it can never hold a negative value. So this:
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
will never happen. (Try calling fib(-2), see what happens)
(Optional) Put size_t count = 0 inside the loop if you can? (You may have to add -std=c99 or something like that to make it work)
for (size_t count = 0; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
Consider documenting this function with something like doxygen. At a quick glance, your function can be interpreted two different ways: Print out fib(0), fib(1), ..., or print out all Fibonacci numbers less than or equal to max_num. Documentation will clarify that.
max_num will never be negative. It is defined as an unsigned int, which means it can never hold a negative value. So this:
if (max_num < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Please, enter a non-negative numbern");
return;
}
will never happen. (Try calling fib(-2), see what happens)
(Optional) Put size_t count = 0 inside the loop if you can? (You may have to add -std=c99 or something like that to make it work)
for (size_t count = 0; count <= max_num; count++)
{
printf("%lun", fib_num);
fib_num += fib_temp;
fib_temp = fib_num - fib_temp;
}
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
edited Dec 16 at 13:23
albert
1372
1372
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
answered Aug 22 '16 at 23:18
Dair
4,442729
4,442729
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, thefor-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
add a comment |
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, thefor-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
Thanks a lot for the answer! I heard some people saying I should stick to the c89 mode. In your opinion, which one is the best?
– Lúcio Cardoso
Aug 23 '16 at 0:33
1
1
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is
-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, the for-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
It has a lot to do with how much of the market supports the language... It may have been at the time a better idea to use C89 over C99 because very few compilers supported C99. This isn't true anymore. It might even be better to use C11. (Which I believe is
-std=c11). A large part is do you need to support C89? C99? If not, I would just do C99, the for-loop syntax for C89 is particularly annoying to me.– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:50
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
For reference there are answers here: stackoverflow.com/a/11926008/667648 That coincide with my comment.
– Dair
Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
@LúcioCardoso The only more or less relevant compiler not supporting C99 is VS C compiler afaik. But C is mostly broken under Windows, similar to OpenGL. It works, with a few quirks, but it's not for serious development.
– larkey
Aug 24 '16 at 10:23
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139400%2fiterative-fibonacci-sequence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
