Most efficient way to determine if value between two other values, inclusive - c++

Question

Similar to Fastest way to determine if an integer is between two integers (inclusive) with known sets of values, I wish to figure out if some value (most likely a double-precision floating point number) is between two other values (of the same type). The caveat is that I don't know already which value is larger than the other and I'm trying to determine if I should/how I should avoid using std::max/min. Here is some code I've tried to test this with already:
inline bool inRangeMult(double p, double v1, double v2) {
return (p - v1) * (p - v2) <= 0;
}
inline bool inRangeMinMax(double p, double v1, double v2) {
return p <= std::max(v1, v2) && p >= std::min(v1, v2);
}
inline bool inRangeComp(double p, double v1, double v2) {
return p < v1 != p < v2;
}
int main()
{
double a = 1e4;
std::clock_t start;
double duration;
bool res = false;
start = std::clock();
for (size_t i = 0; i < 2e4; ++i) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2e4; ++j) {
res = inRangeMult(a, i, j) ? res : !res;
}
}
duration = std::clock() - start;
std::cout << "InRangeMult: " << duration << std::endl;
start = std::clock();
for (size_t i = 0; i < 2e4; ++i) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2e4; ++j) {
res = inRangeMinMax(a, i, j) ? res : !res;
}
}
duration = std::clock() - start;
std::cout << "InRangeMinMax: " << duration << std::endl;
start = std::clock();
for (size_t i = 0; i < 2e4; ++i) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2e4; ++j) {
res = inRangeComp(a, i, j) ? res : !res;
}
}
duration = std::clock() - start;
std::cout << "InRangeComp: " << duration << std::endl;
std::cout << "Tricking the compiler by printing inane res: " << res << std::endl;
}
On most runs I'm finding that using std::min/max is still fastest, (latest run prints 346, 310, and 324 respectively), but I'm not 100% confident this is the best test setup, or that I've exhausted all of the reasonable implementations.
I'd appreciate anyone's input with a better profiling setup and/or better implementation.
EDIT: Updated code to make it less prone to compiler optimization.
2nd EDIT: Tweaked value of a and number of iterations. Results for one run are:
inRangeMult: 1337
inRangeMinMaz: 1127
inRangeComp: 729

Answer 1

The first test:
(p - v1) * (p - v2) <= 0
May result in overflow or underflow, due to the arithmetic operations.
The last one:
p < v1 != p < v2
Doesn't provide the same results as the others, which are inclusive in respect of the boundaries v1 and v2. It's an admittedly small difference, considering the range and precision of the type double, but it may be significant.
Another option is to explicitly expand the logic of the second function:
p <= std::max(v1, v2) && p >= std::min(v1, v2) // v1 and v2 are compared twice
Into something like this:
bool inRangeComp(double p, double v1, double v2) {
return v1 <= v2 // <- v1 and v2 are compared only once
? v1 <= p && p <= v2
: v2 <= p && p <= v1;
}
At least one compiler (gcc 8.2), HERE (thanks to jarod42 for the linked snippet), seems to prefer this version over the alternatives.