dividebyzero - Developer IT

Why can't I divide by zero? [closed]

- by Jmet

Why can't I divide by zero? My calculator says it's an error, and my program throws a "divide by zero" error.

how to check if there is a division by zero in c

#include<stdio.h> void function(int); int main() { int x; printf("Enter x:"); scanf("%d", &x); function(x); return 0; } void function(int x) { float fx; fx=10/x; if(10 is divided by zero)// I dont know what to put here please help printf("division by zero is not allowed"); else printf("f(x) is: %.5f",fx); }

Read the article

Can I ignore a SIGFPE resulting from division by zero?

- by Mikeage

I have a program which deliberately performs a divide by zero (and stores the result in a volatile variable) in order to halt in certain circumstances. However, I'd like to be able to disable this halting, without changing the macro that performs the division by zero. Is there any way to ignore it? I've tried using #include <signal.h> ... int main(void) { signal(SIGFPE, SIG_IGN); ... } but it still dies with the message "Floating point exception (core dumped)". I don't actually use the value, so I don't really care what's assigned to the variable; 0, random, undefined... EDIT: I know this is not the most portable, but it's intended for an embedded device which runs on many different OSes. The default halt action is to divide by zero; other platforms require different tricks to force a watchdog induced reboot (such as an infinite loop with interrupts disabled). For a PC (linux) test environment, I wanted to disable the halt on division by zero without relying on things like assert.

Read the article

VS C++ throwing divide by zero exception after a specific check

- by Dr. Monkey

In the following C++ code, it should be impossible for ain integer division by zero to occur: // gradedUnits and totalGrades are both of type int if (gradedUnits == 0) { return 0; } else { return totalGrades/gradedUnits; //call stack points to this line } however Visual Studio is popping up this error: Unhandled exception at 0x001712c0 in DSA_asgn1.exe: 0xC0000094: Integer division by zero. And the stack trace points to the line indicated in the code. It seems like VS might just do this with any integer division, without checking whether a divide by zero is possible. Do I need to catch this exception even though the code should never be able to throw it? If so, what's the best way to go about this? This is for an assignment that specifies VS 2005/2008 with C++. I would prefer not to make things more complicated than I need to, but at the same time I like to do things properly where possible.

Read the article

Can bad stuff happen when dividing 1/a very small float?

- by Jeremybub

If I want to check that positive float A is less than the inverse square of another positive float B (in C99), could something go wrong if B is very small? I could imagine checking it like if(A<1/(B*B)) but if B is small enough, would this possibly result in infinity? If that were to happen, would the code still work correctly in all situations? in a similar vein, I might do if(1/A>B*B) Which might be slightly better because B*B might be zero if B is small (is this true?) Finally, a solution that I can't imagine being wrong is if(sqrt(1/A)>B) Which I don't think would ever result in zero division, but still might be problematic if A is close to zero. So basically, my questions are Can 1/X ever be infinity if X is greater than zero (but small)? Can X*X ever be zero if X is greater than zero? Will comparisons with infinity work the way I would expect them to?

Read the article

How to guard against dividing by zero when doing symbolic regression? ECJ

- by Charlie

I'm writing a genetic program to perform symbolic regression on a formula. I'm using ECJ. See tutorial 4 for an example of what this is and the base that I started off of. The problem comes when implementing division as a function to your genetic program. How do you guard against dividing by zero?

Read the article

Division by zero: Undefined Behavior or Implementation Defined in C and/or C++ ?

- by SiegeX

Regarding division by zero, the standards say: C99 6.5.5p5 - The result of the / operator is the quotient from the division of the first operand by the second; the result of the % operator is the remainder. In both operations, if the value of the second operand is zero, the behavior is undefined. C++03 5.6.4 - The binary / operator yields the quotient, and the binary % operator yields the remainder from the division of the first expression by the second. If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined. If we were to take the above paragraphs at face value, the answer is clearly Undefined Behavior for both languages. However, if we look further down in the C99 standard we see the following paragraph which appears to be contradictory(1): C99 7.12p4 - The macro INFINITY expands to a constant expression of type float representing positive or unsigned infinity, if available; Do the standards have some sort of golden rule where Undefined Behavior cannot be superseded by a (potentially) contradictory statement? Barring that, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that if your implementation defines the INFINITY macro, division by zero is defined to be such. However, if your implementation does not define such a macro, the behavior is Undefined. I'm curious what the consensus on this matter for each of the two languages. Would the answer change if we are talking about integer division int i = 1 / 0 versus floating point division float i = 1.0 / 0.0 ? Note (1) The C++03 standard talks about the library which includes the INFINITY macro.

Read the article

Zero division does not throw exception in nunit

- by Boris

Running the following C# code through NUnit yields Test.ControllerTest.TestSanity: Expected: <System.DivideByZeroException> But was: null So either no DivideByZeroException is thrown, or NUnit does not catch it. Similar to this question, but the answers he got, do not seem to work for me. This is using NUnit 2.5.5.10112, and .NET 4.0.30319. [Test] public void TestSanity() { Assert.Throws<DivideByZeroException>(new TestDelegate(() => DivideByZero())); } private void DivideByZero() { // Parse "0" to make sure to get an error at run time, not compile time. var a = (1 / Double.Parse("0")); } Any ideas?

Read the article

FaultException<T>() exception thrown by the service is not caught by the client catch(FaultException

- by Ashish Gupta

Ok, I know I am missing something here. I have the following operation contract: public double DivideByZero(int x, int y) { if (y == 0) { throw new FaultException<ArgumentException> (new ArgumentException("Just some dummy exception") ,new FaultReason("some very bogus reason"), new FaultCode("007")); } return x / y; } And following is taken from the client:- Console.WriteLine("Enter the x value"); string x = Console.ReadLine(); Console.WriteLine("Enter the Y value"); string y = Console.ReadLine(); try { double val = client.DivideByZero(Convert.ToInt32(x), Convert.ToInt32(y)); Console.WriteLine("The result is " + val.ToString()); } catch(FaultException<ArgumentException> exp) { Console.WriteLine("An ArgumentException was thrown by the service "+ exp.ToString()); } catch (Exception exp) { Console.WriteLine(exp.ToString()); } In the above case catch(FaultException exp) (the first catch block with ArgumentException in the client code) block does not get executed. However, when I remove ArgumentException to have catch(FaultException exp), the same catch block gets executed. I am not sure about this as I am throwing FaultException from my operation contract. Am I missing anything here. Appreciate your help, Ashish

Developer IT