I want to implement a template function, which detects if the difference of ValueA and ValueB is bigger than a given hystersis.
e.x.
ValueA=5, ValueB=7, Hystersis=1 -> true
ValueA=5, ValueB=7, Hystersis=3 -> false
ValueA=-5, ValueB=1, Hystersis=7 -> false
So I implemented this function:
template<typename T>
bool MyClass::IsHysteresisExceeded(T ValueA, T ValueB, T Hysteresis) {
T ValueMax = std::max(ValueA, ValueB);
T ValueMin = std::min(ValueA, ValueB);
return (ValueMax - ValueMin) > Hysteresis;
}
But with the following parameters this function returns false when I expected true as result.
IsHysteresisExceeded<int>(-2147483648, 2147483647, 10)
I know that a integer overflow occurs while subtracting, but I did not find an elegant solution yet.
I have the following solution for integers:
template<typename T>
bool IsHysteresisExceeded(T ValueA, T ValueB, T Hysteresis) {
T ValueMax = std::max(ValueA, ValueB);
T ValueMin = std::min(ValueA, ValueB);
assert(Hysteresis >= 0);
T underflowRange = std::numeric_limits<T>::min() + Hysteresis;
bool underflow = underflowRange > ValueMax;
return !underflow && (ValueMax - Hysteresis > ValueMin);
}
The trick is to detect the underflow. If it happens you may be sure ValueMin is in range <ValueMax,std::numeric_limits<T>::min()> and
(ValueMax - Hysteresis) < std::numeric_limits<T>::min() <= ValueMin
I posted the code on godbolt.org
Edit:
My previous answer used a very popular approach and was also wrong. I proposed to detect the underflow like:
T lowBound = ValueMax - Hysteresis;
bool underflow = lowBound > ValueMax;
Although it produces expected results on the architectures i know, it is an undefined behavior.
One way to detect possible overflow is to use some indicator of "how far" from limits is a value. I use a simple division, which wants to normalize vale values in the range [-1,1].
Then I substract both "positions" to get the range between them, and compare it with a valid range, this is, 1:
#include <limits>
#include <math.h>
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
bool IsHysteresisExceeded(T ValueA, T ValueB, T Hysteresis) {
long double posA = (long double) ValueA / std::numeric_limits<T>::max();
long double posB = (long double) ValueB / std::numeric_limits<T>::max();
if (std::fabs(posA - posB) > 1)
return true; //ValueMax - ValueMin would overflow
T ValueMax = std::max(ValueA, ValueB);
T ValueMin = std::min(ValueA, ValueB);
return (ValueMax - ValueMin) > Hysteresis;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << (IsHysteresisExceeded<int>(-2147483648, 2147483647, 10) ? "Exceeded" : "In range") << std::endl;
}
I was hoping that this version would compile down efficiently, but alas, the C++ compiler on my machine is unable to merge the two branches. Posting anyway because it uses only +, -, < and a default constructor for 0.
#include <algorithm>
#include <tuple>
template <typename T> bool IsHysteresisExceeded(T a, T b, T h) {
std::tie(a, b) = std::minmax(a, b);
return a < T{} ? h + a < b : h < b - a;
}
bool test(int a, int b, int h) { return IsHysteresisExceeded(a, b, h); }
Related
I'd like to do this piece of code
auto f = player == color ? max : min;
Where player and color are booleans and min and max are standard functions from C++ library.
But I get this error : error: overloaded function with no contextual type information
How do I tell the compiler I want to load min and max that compares integers?
Here's how to reproduce the error :
1) create a file toto.cpp
2) paste this :
int main() {
bool one = 1;
bool zero = 0;
auto f = one == zero ? std::min : std::max;
return 0;
}
3) compile it g++ toto.cpp
4) run it ./a.out
5) observe the same error as above
Something like this?
#include <algorithm>
int main()
{
auto Max = [](int a, int b){return std::max(a, b);};
auto Min = [](int a, int b){return std::min(a, b);};
bool one = 1;
bool zero = 0;
auto f = one == zero ? Min : Max;
return 0;
}
I think the compiler is simply not able to deduce the template parameter(s) for std::max and std::min when you write it like:
auto f = one == zero ? std::min : std::max;
how can i round number on 5 decimal numbers of some result ?
I have something like this...
double s;
s=d/a;s1=d1/a1;
here i need to round these 2 numbers ... because s1 is different from s by 0.00000002 etc
if(s1>s){
printf("S1 > S");
if(s1==s){
printf("S1 = S");
someone with help with this ? Thank you
Round numbers before (compare) statement
Scale by 100,000, round to a whole number and then compare.
No need to divide by the scaling and introduce more computational errors in order to compare.
#include <math.h>
int compare_rounded(double a, double b, double scale) {
// or use round(), nearby()
a = rint(a*scale);
b = rint(b*scale);
return (a > b) - (a < b);
}
OR perhaps more simply subtract. This gives slight different results. All depends what OP wants.
int compare_rounded2(double a, double b, double guard) {
double diff = a-b;
if (diff < -guard) return -1;
return diff > guard;
}
then call one of the 2
double s =d/a;
double s1 =d1/a1;
int cmp = compare_rounded(s1,s, 100000.0);
// or
int cmp = compare_rounded2(s1,s, 100000.0);
if (cmp > 0) {
puts("S1 > S");
} else if (cmp == 0) {
puts("S1 == S");
} else {
puts("S1 < S");
}
To cope with both numbers near the same limit of double like DBL_MAX, additional code is needed is the first function due to a*scale overflow.
I know power of 2 can be implemented using << operator.
What about power of 10? Like 10^5? Is there any way faster than pow(10,5) in C++? It is a pretty straight-forward computation by hand. But seems not easy for computers due to binary representation of the numbers... Let us assume I am only interested in integer powers, 10^n, where n is an integer.
Something like this:
int quick_pow10(int n)
{
static int pow10[10] = {
1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000,
100000, 1000000, 10000000, 100000000, 1000000000
};
return pow10[n];
}
Obviously, can do the same thing for long long.
This should be several times faster than any competing method. However, it is quite limited if you have lots of bases (although the number of values goes down quite dramatically with larger bases), so if there isn't a huge number of combinations, it's still doable.
As a comparison:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cmath>
static int quick_pow10(int n)
{
static int pow10[10] = {
1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000,
100000, 1000000, 10000000, 100000000, 1000000000
};
return pow10[n];
}
static int integer_pow(int x, int n)
{
int r = 1;
while (n--)
r *= x;
return r;
}
static int opt_int_pow(int n)
{
int r = 1;
const int x = 10;
while (n)
{
if (n & 1)
{
r *= x;
n--;
}
else
{
r *= x * x;
n -= 2;
}
}
return r;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
long long sum = 0;
int n = strtol(argv[1], 0, 0);
const long outer_loops = 1000000000;
if (argv[2][0] == 'a')
{
for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
{
for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
{
sum += quick_pow10(n);
}
}
}
if (argv[2][0] == 'b')
{
for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
{
for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
{
sum += integer_pow(10,n);
}
}
}
if (argv[2][0] == 'c')
{
for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
{
for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
{
sum += opt_int_pow(n);
}
}
}
std::cout << "sum=" << sum << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Compiled with g++ 4.6.3, using -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x, gives the following results:
$ g++ -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x pow.cpp
$ time ./a.out 8 a
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m0.124s
user 0m0.119s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out 8 b
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m7.502s
user 0m7.482s
sys 0m0.003s
$ time ./a.out 8 c
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m6.098s
user 0m6.077s
sys 0m0.002s
(I did have an option for using pow as well, but it took 1m22.56s when I first tried it, so I removed it when I decided to have optimised loop variant)
There are certainly ways to compute integral powers of 10 faster than using std::pow()! The first realization is that pow(x, n) can be implemented in O(log n) time. The next realization is that pow(x, 10) is the same as (x << 3) * (x << 1). Of course, the compiler knows the latter, i.e., when you are multiplying an integer by the integer constant 10, the compiler will do whatever is fastest to multiply by 10. Based on these two rules it is easy to create fast computations, even if x is a big integer type.
In case you are interested in games like this:
A generic O(log n) version of power is discussed in Elements of Programming.
Lots of interesting "tricks" with integers are discussed in Hacker's Delight.
A solution for any base using template meta-programming :
template<int E, int N>
struct pow {
enum { value = E * pow<E, N - 1>::value };
};
template <int E>
struct pow<E, 0> {
enum { value = 1 };
};
Then it can be used to generate a lookup-table that can be used at runtime :
template<int E>
long long quick_pow(unsigned int n) {
static long long lookupTable[] = {
pow<E, 0>::value, pow<E, 1>::value, pow<E, 2>::value,
pow<E, 3>::value, pow<E, 4>::value, pow<E, 5>::value,
pow<E, 6>::value, pow<E, 7>::value, pow<E, 8>::value,
pow<E, 9>::value
};
return lookupTable[n];
}
This must be used with correct compiler flags in order to detect the possible overflows.
Usage example :
for(unsigned int n = 0; n < 10; ++n) {
std::cout << quick_pow<10>(n) << std::endl;
}
An integer power function (which doesn't involve floating-point conversions and computations) may very well be faster than pow():
int integer_pow(int x, int n)
{
int r = 1;
while (n--)
r *= x;
return r;
}
Edit: benchmarked - the naive integer exponentiation method seems to outperform the floating-point one by about a factor of two:
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$ cat quirk.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <math.h>
int integer_pow(int x, int n)
{
int r = 1;
while (n--)
r *= x;
return r;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
x += powerfunc(i, 5);
}
printf("x = %d\n", x);
return 0;
}
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$ clang -Wall -o quirk quirk.c -Dpowerfunc=integer_pow
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$ time ./quirk
x = -1945812992
real 0m1.169s
user 0m1.164s
sys 0m0.003s
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$ clang -Wall -o quirk quirk.c -Dpowerfunc=pow
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$ time ./quirk
x = -2147483648
real 0m2.898s
user 0m2.891s
sys 0m0.004s
h2co3-macbook:~ h2co3$
No multiplication and no table version:
//Nx10^n
int Npow10(int N, int n){
N <<= n;
while(n--) N += N << 2;
return N;
}
Here is a stab at it:
// specialize if you have a bignum integer like type you want to work with:
template<typename T> struct is_integer_like:std::is_integral<T> {};
template<typename T> struct make_unsigned_like:std::make_unsigned<T> {};
template<typename T, typename U>
T powT( T base, U exponent ) {
static_assert( is_integer_like<U>::value, "exponent must be integer-like" );
static_assert( std::is_same< U, typename make_unsigned_like<U>::type >::value, "exponent must be unsigned" );
T retval = 1;
T& multiplicand = base;
if (exponent) {
while (true) {
// branch prediction will be awful here, you may have to micro-optimize:
retval *= (exponent&1)?multiplicand:1;
// or /2, whatever -- `>>1` is probably faster, esp for bignums:
exponent = exponent>>1;
if (!exponent)
break;
multiplicand *= multiplicand;
}
}
return retval;
}
What is going on above is a few things.
First, so BigNum support is cheap, it is templateized. Out of the box, it supports any base type that supports *= own_type and either can be implicitly converted to int, or int can be implicitly converted to it (if both is true, problems will occur), and you need to specialize some templates to indicate that the exponent type involved is both unsigned and integer-like.
In this case, integer-like and unsigned means that it supports &1 returning bool and >>1 returning something it can be constructed from and eventually (after repeated >>1s) reaches a point where evaluating it in a bool context returns false. I used traits classes to express the restriction, because naive use by a value like -1 would compile and (on some platforms) loop forever, while (on others) would not.
Execution time for this algorithm, assuming multiplication is O(1), is O(lg(exponent)), where lg(exponent) is the number of times it takes to <<1 the exponent before it evaluates as false in a boolean context. For traditional integer types, this would be the binary log of the exponents value: so no more than 32.
I also eliminated all branches within the loop (or, made it obvious to existing compilers that no branch is needed, more precisely), with just the control branch (which is true uniformly until it is false once). Possibly eliminating even that branch might be worth it for high bases and low exponents...
Now, with constexpr, you can do like so:
constexpr int pow10(int n) {
int result = 1;
for (int i = 1; i<=n; ++i)
result *= 10;
return result;
}
int main () {
int i = pow10(5);
}
i will be calculated at compile time. ASM generated for x86-64 gcc 9.2:
main:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
mov DWORD PTR [rbp-4], 100000
mov eax, 0
pop rbp
ret
You can use the lookup table which will be by far the fastest
You can also consider using this:-
template <typename T>
T expt(T p, unsigned q)
{
T r(1);
while (q != 0) {
if (q % 2 == 1) { // q is odd
r *= p;
q--;
}
p *= p;
q /= 2;
}
return r;
}
This function will calculate x ^ y much faster then pow. In case of integer values.
int pot(int x, int y){
int solution = 1;
while(y){
if(y&1)
solution*= x;
x *= x;
y >>= 1;
}
return solution;
}
A generic table builder based on constexpr functions. The floating point part requires c++20 and gcc, but the non-floating point part works for c++17. If you change the "auto" type param to "long" you can use c++14. Not properly tested.
#include <cstdio>
#include <cassert>
#include <cmath>
// Precomputes x^N
// Inspired by https://stackoverflow.com/a/34465458
template<auto x, unsigned char N, typename AccumulatorType>
struct PowTable {
constexpr PowTable() : mTable() {
AccumulatorType p{ 1 };
for (unsigned char i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
p *= x;
mTable[i] = p;
}
}
AccumulatorType operator[](unsigned char n) const {
assert(n < N);
return mTable[n];
}
AccumulatorType mTable[N];
};
long pow10(unsigned char n) {
static constexpr PowTable<10l, 10, long> powTable;
return powTable[n-1];
}
double powe(unsigned char n) {
static constexpr PowTable<2.71828182845904523536, 10, double> powTable;
return powTable[n-1];
}
int main() {
printf("10^3=%ld\n", pow10(3));
printf("e^2=%f", powe(2));
assert(pow10(3) == 1000);
assert(powe(2) - 7.389056 < 0.001);
}
Based on Mats Petersson approach, but compile time generation of cache.
#include <iostream>
#include <limits>
#include <array>
// digits
template <typename T>
constexpr T digits(T number) {
return number == 0 ? 0
: 1 + digits<T>(number / 10);
}
// pow
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24656212/why-does-gcc-complain-error-type-intt-of-template-argument-0-depends-on-a
// unfortunatly we can't write `template <typename T, T N>` because of partial specialization `PowerOfTen<T, 1>`
template <typename T, uintmax_t N>
struct PowerOfTen {
enum { value = 10 * PowerOfTen<T, N - 1>::value };
};
template <typename T>
struct PowerOfTen<T, 1> {
enum { value = 1 };
};
// sequence
template<typename T, T...>
struct pow10_sequence { };
template<typename T, T From, T N, T... Is>
struct make_pow10_sequence_from
: make_pow10_sequence_from<T, From, N - 1, N - 1, Is...> {
//
};
template<typename T, T From, T... Is>
struct make_pow10_sequence_from<T, From, From, Is...>
: pow10_sequence<T, Is...> {
//
};
// base10list
template <typename T, T N, T... Is>
constexpr std::array<T, N> base10list(pow10_sequence<T, Is...>) {
return {{ PowerOfTen<T, Is>::value... }};
}
template <typename T, T N>
constexpr std::array<T, N> base10list() {
return base10list<T, N>(make_pow10_sequence_from<T, 1, N+1>());
}
template <typename T>
constexpr std::array<T, digits(std::numeric_limits<T>::max())> base10list() {
return base10list<T, digits(std::numeric_limits<T>::max())>();
};
// main pow function
template <typename T>
static T template_quick_pow10(T n) {
static auto values = base10list<T>();
return values[n];
}
// client code
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
long long sum = 0;
int n = strtol(argv[1], 0, 0);
const long outer_loops = 1000000000;
if (argv[2][0] == 't') {
for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++) {
for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++) {
sum += template_quick_pow10(n);
}
}
}
std::cout << "sum=" << sum << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Code does not contain quick_pow10, integer_pow, opt_int_pow for better readability, but tests done with them in the code.
Compiled with gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5), using -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x, gives the following results:
$ g++ -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x main.cpp
$ time ./a.out 8 a
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m0.438s
user 0m0.432s
sys 0m0.008s
$ time ./a.out 8 b
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m8.783s
user 0m8.777s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out 8 c
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m6.708s
user 0m6.700s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out 8 t
sum=100000000000000000
real 0m0.439s
user 0m0.436s
sys 0m0.000s
if you want to calculate, e.g.,10^5, then you can:
int main() {
cout << (int)1e5 << endl; // will print 100000
cout << (int)1e3 << endl; // will print 1000
return 0;
}
result *= 10 can also be written as result = (result << 3) + (result << 1)
constexpr int pow10(int n) {
int result = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
result = (result << 3) + (result << 1);
}
return result;
}
I want to find the lowest number of the four, but this looks kinda wierd , isnt there a smarter and shorter way to do it?
That is what I have:
int findlowest(int one, int two, int three, int four) {
int output = one //as of now , we will be outputting one , except if we find a lower score.
if(output > two) { out = two;} // if output is proven to be bigger than two, two is our new output.
if(output > three){ output = three;} //same operation with three
if(output > four){ output = four;} // same operation with four
return output;
}
std::min(a, std::min(b, std::min(c, d)));
Include <algorithm>.
c++11:
int minimum = std::min( { 1,2,3,4,5 } );
min_int = min(min(one, two), min(three, four));
int a[] = {1,2,3,4,5};
int minimum = *std::min_element(a, a+5);
Lots of answers saying to use the Standard library facilities - they're right, it covers this case! But, for the educational value, here's a slightly more concise way to do what you were doing:
int findlowest(int a, int b, int c, int d)
{
int of_a_b = a < b ? a : b;
int of_c_d = c < d ? c : d;
return of_a_b < of_c_d ? of_a_b : of_c_d;
}
Easily generalised for different types (though C++03 doesn't make it easy to generalise for arbitrary numbers of arguments):
template <typename T>
T findlowest(const T& a, const T& b, const T& c, const T& d)
{
const T& of_a_b = a < b ? a : b;
const T& of_c_d = c < d ? c : d;
return of_a_b < of_c_d ? of_a_b : of_c_d;
}
Simple question - In c++, what's the neatest way of getting which of two numbers (u0 and u1) is the smallest positive number? (that's still efficient)
Every way I try it involves big if statements or complicated conditional statements.
Thanks,
Dan
Here's a simple example:
bool lowestPositive(int a, int b, int& result)
{
//checking code
result = b;
return true;
}
lowestPositive(5, 6, result);
If the values are represented in twos complement, then
result = ((unsigned )a < (unsigned )b) ? a : b;
will work since negative values in twos complement are larger, when treated as unsigned, than positive values. As with Jeff's answer, this assumes at least one of the values is positive.
return result >= 0;
I prefer clarity over compactness:
bool lowestPositive( int a, int b, int& result )
{
if (a > 0 && a <= b) // a is positive and smaller than or equal to b
result = a;
else if (b > 0) // b is positive and either smaller than a or a is negative
result = b;
else
result = a; // at least b is negative, we might not have an answer
return result > 0; // zero is not positive
}
Might get me modded down, but just for kicks, here is the result without any comparisons, because comparisons are for whimps. :-)
bool lowestPositive(int u, int v, int& result)
{
result = (u + v - abs(u - v))/2;
return (bool) result - (u + v + abs(u - v)) / 2;
}
Note: Fails if (u + v) > max_int. At least one number must be positive for the return code to be correct. Also kudos to polythinker's solution :)
unsigned int mask = 1 << 31;
unsigned int m = mask;
while ((a & m) == (b & m)) {
m >>= 1;
}
result = (a & m) ? b : a;
return ! ((a & mask) && (b & mask));
EDIT: Thought this is not so interesting so I deleted it. But on the second thought, just leave it here for fun :) This can be considered as a dump version of Doug's answer :)
Here's a fast solution in C using bit twiddling to find min(x, y). It is a modified version of #Doug Currie's answer and inspired by the answer to the Find the Minimum Positive Value question:
bool lowestPositive(int a, int b, int* pout)
{
/* exclude zero, make a negative number to be larger any positive number */
unsigned x = (a - 1), y = (b - 1);
/* min(x, y) + 1 */
*pout = y + ((x - y) & -(x < y)) + 1;
return *pout > 0;
}
Example:
/** gcc -std=c99 *.c && a */
#include <assert.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
void T(int a, int b)
{
int result = 0;
printf("%d %d ", a, b);
if (lowestPositive(a, b, &result))
printf(": %d\n", result);
else
printf(" are not positive\n");
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
T(5, 6);
T(6, 5);
T(6, -1);
T(-1, -2);
T(INT_MIN, INT_MAX);
T(INT_MIN, INT_MIN);
T(INT_MAX, INT_MIN);
T(0, -1);
T(0, INT_MIN);
T(-1, 0);
T(INT_MIN, 0);
T(INT_MAX, 0);
T(0, INT_MAX);
T(0, 0);
return 0;
}
Output:
5 6 : 5
6 5 : 5
6 -1 : 6
-1 -2 are not positive
-2147483648 2147483647 : 2147483647
-2147483648 -2147483648 are not positive
2147483647 -2147483648 : 2147483647
0 -1 are not positive
0 -2147483648 are not positive
-1 0 are not positive
-2147483648 0 are not positive
2147483647 0 : 2147483647
0 2147483647 : 2147483647
0 0 are not positive
This will handle all possible inputs as you request.
bool lowestPositive(int a, int b, int& result)
{
if ( a < 0 and b < 0 )
return false
result = std::min<unsigned int>( a, b );
return true;
}
That being said, the signature you supply allows sneaky bugs to appear, as it is easy to ignore the return value of this function or not even remember that there is a return value that has to be checked to know if the result is correct.
You may prefer one of these alternatives that makes it harder to overlook that a success result has to be checked:
boost::optional<int> lowestPositive(int a, int b)
{
boost::optional<int> result;
if ( a >= 0 or b >= 0 )
result = std::min<unsigned int>( a, b );
return result;
}
or
void lowestPositive(int a, int b, int& result, bool &success)
{
success = ( a >= 0 or b >= 0 )
if ( success )
result = std::min<unsigned int>( a, b );
}
tons of the answers here are ignoring the fact that zero isn't positive :)
with tricky casting and tern:
bool leastPositive(int a, int b, int& result) {
result = ((unsigned) a < (unsigned) b) ? a : b;
return result > 0;
}
less cute:
bool leastPositive(int a, int b, int& result) {
if(a > 0 && b > 0)
result = a < b ? a : b;
else
result = a > b ? a : b:
return result > 0;
}
I suggest you refactor the function into simpler functions. Furthermore, this allows your compiler to better enforce expected input data.
unsigned int minUnsigned( unsigned int a, unsigned int b )
{
return ( a < b ) ? a : b;
}
bool lowestPositive( int a, int b, int& result )
{
if ( a < 0 && b < 0 ) // SO comments refer to the previous version that had || here
{
return false;
}
result = minUnsigned( (unsigned)a, (unsigned)b ); // negative signed integers become large unsigned values
return true;
}
This works on all three signed-integer representations allowed by ISO C:
two's complement, one's complement, and even sign/magnitude. All we care about is that any positive signed integer (MSB cleared) compares below anything with the MSB set.
This actually compiles to really nice code with clang for x86, as you can see on the Godbolt Compiler Explorer. gcc 5.3 unfortunately does a much worse job.
Hack using "magic constant" -1:
enum
{
INVALID_POSITIVE = -1
};
int lowestPositive(int a, int b)
{
return (a>=0 ? ( b>=0 ? (b > a ? a : b ) : INVALID_POSITIVE ) : INVALID_POSITIVE );
}
This makes no assumptions about the numbers being positive.
Pseudocode because I have no compiler on hand:
////0 if both negative, 1 if u0 positive, 2 if u1 positive, 3 if both positive
switch((u0 > 0 ? 1 : 0) + (u1 > 0 ? 2 : 0)) {
case 0:
return false; //Note that this leaves the result value undef.
case 1:
result = u0;
return true;
case 2:
result = u1;
return true;
case 3:
result = (u0 < u1 ? u0 : u1);
return true;
default: //undefined and probably impossible condition
return false;
}
This is compact without a lot of if statements, but relies on the ternary " ? : " operator, which is just a compact if, then, else statement. "(true ? "yes" : "no")" returns "yes", "(false ? "yes" : "no") returns "no".
In a normal switch statement after every case you should have a break;, to exit the switch. In this case we have a return statement, so we're exiting the entire function.
With all due respect, your problem may be that the English phrase used to describe the problem really does hide some complexity (or at least some unresolved questions). In my experience, this is a common source of bugs and/or unfulfilled expectations in the "real world" as well. Here are some of the issues I observed:
Some programmers use a naming
convention in which a leading u
implies unsigned, but you didn't
state explicitly whether your
"numbers" are unsigned or signed
(or, for that matter, whether they
are even supposed to be integral!)
I suspect that all of us who read it
assumed that if one argument is
positive and the other is not, then
the (only) positive argument value
is the correct response, but that is
not explicitly stated.
The description also doesn't define
the required behavior if both values
are non-positive.
Finally, some of the responses
offered prior to this post seem to
imply that the responder thought
(mistakenly) that 0 is positive! A
more specific requirements statement
might help prevent any
misunderstanding (or make it clear
that the issue of zero hadn't been
thought out completely when the
requirement was written).
I'm not trying to be overly critical; I'm just suggesting that a more precisely-written requirement will probably help, and will probably also make it clear whether some of the complexity you're concerned about in the implementation is really implicit in the nature of the problem.
Three lines with the use (abuse?) of the ternary operator
int *smallest_positive(int *u1, int *u2) {
if (*u1 < 0) return *u2 >= 0 ? u2 : NULL;
if (*u2 < 0) return u1;
return *u1 < *u2 ? u1 : u2;
}
Don't know about efficiency or what to do if both u1 and u2 are negative. I opted to return NULL (which has to be checked in the caller); a return of a pointer to a static -1 might be more useful.
Edited to reflect the changes in the original question :)
bool smallest_positive(int u1, int u2, int& result) {
if (u1 < 0) {
if (u2 < 0) return false; /* result unchanged */
result = u2;
} else {
if (u2 < 0) result = u1;
else result = u1 < u2 ? u1 : u2;
}
return true;
}
uint lowestPos(uint a, uint b) { return (a < b ? a : b); }
You are looking for the smallest positive, it is be wise to accept positive values only in that case. You don't have to catch the negative values problem in your function, you should solve it at an earlier point in the caller function. For the same reason I left the boolean oit.
A precondition is that they are not equal, you would use it like this in that way:
if (a == b)
cout << "equal";
else
{
uint lowest = lowestPos(a, b);
cout << (lowest == a ? "a is lowest" : "b is lowest");
}
You can introduce const when you want to prevent changes or references if you want to change the result. Under normal conditions the computer will optimize and even inline the function.
No cleverness, reasonable clarity, works for ints and floats:
template<class T>
inline
bool LowestPositive( const T a, const T b, T* result ) {
const bool b_is_pos = b > 0;
if( a > 0 && ( !b_is_pos || a < b ) ) {
*result = a;
return true;
}
if( b_is_pos ) {
*result = b;
return true;
}
return false;
}
Note that 0 (zero) is not a positive number.
OP asks for dealing with numbers (I interpret this as ints and floats).
Only dereference result pointer if there is a positive result (performance)
Only test a and b for positiveness once (performance -- not sure if such a test is expensive?)
Note also that the accepted answer (by tvanfosson) is wrong. It fails if a is positive and b is negative (saying that "neither is positive"). (This is the only reason I add a separate answer -- I don't have reputation enough to add comments.)
My idea is based on using min and max. And categorized the result into three cases, where
min <= 0 and max <= 0
min <= 0 and max > 0
min > 0 and max > 0
The best thing is that it's not look too complicated.
Code:
bool lowestPositive(int a, int b, int& result)
{
int min = (a < b) ? a : b;
int max = (a > b) ? a : b;
bool smin = min > 0;
bool smax = max > 0;
if(!smax) return false;
if(smin) result = min;
else result = max;
return true;
}
After my first post was rejected, allow me to suggest that you are prematurely optimizing the problem and you shouldn't worry about having lots of if statements. The code you're writing naturally requires multiple 'if' statements, and whether they are expressed with the ternary if operator (A ? B : C) or classic if blocks, the execution time is the same, the compiler is going to optimize almost all of the code posted into very nearly the same logic.
Concern yourself with the readability and reliability of your code rather than trying to outwit your future self or anyone else who reads the code. Every solution posted is O(1) from what I can tell, that is, every single solution will contribute insignificantly to the performance of your code.
I would like to suggest that this post be tagged "premature optimization," the poster is not looking for elegant code.