In my program I read in a file (here only a test file of about 200k data points afterwards there will be millions.) Now what I do is:
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
fid.seekg(4,ios_base::cur);
fid.read((char*) &x[i],8);
fid.seekg(8,ios_base::cur);
fid.read((char*) &y[i],8);
fid.seekg(8,ios_base::cur);
fid.read((char*) &z[i],8);
fid.read((char*) &d[i],8);
d[i] = (d[i] - p)/p;
z[i] *= cc;
}
Whereby n denotes the number of points to read in.
Afterwards I write them again with
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
fid.write((char*) &d[i],8);
fid.write((char*) &z[i],8);
temp = (d[i] + 1) * p;
fid.write((char*) &temp,8);
}
Whereby the writing is faster then the reading.(time measured with clock_t)
My Question is now. Have I done some rather stupid mistake with the reading or can this behavior be expected?
I'm using Win XP with a magnetic drive.
yours magu_
You're using seekg too often. I see that you're using it to skip bytes, but you could as well read the complete buffer and then skip the bytes in the buffer:
char buffer[52];
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
fid.read(buffer, sizeof(buffer));
memcpy(&x[i], &buffer[4], sizeof(x[i]));
memcpy(&y[i], &buffer[20], sizeof(y[i]));
// etc
}
However, you can define a struct that represents the data in your file:
#pragma pack(push, 1)
struct Item
{
char dummy1[4]; // skip 4 bytes
__int64 x;
char dummy2[8]; // skip 8 bytes
__int64 y;
char dummy3[8]; // skip 8 bytes
__int64 z;
__int64 d;
};
#pragma pack(pop)
then declare an array of those structs and read all data at once:
Item* items = new Item[n];
fid.read(items, n * sizeof(Item)); // read all data at once will be amazing fast
(remark: I don't know the types of x, y, z and d, so I assume __int64 here)
I personally would (at least) do this:
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
char dummy[8];
fid.read(dummy,4);
fid.read((char*) &x[i],8);
fid.read(dummy,8);
fid.read((char*) &y[i],8);
fid.read(dummy,8);
fid.read((char*) &z[i],8);
fid.read((char*) &d[i],8);
d[i] = (d[i] - p)/p;
z[i] *= cc;
}
Doing a struct, or reading large amounts of data in one go (say adding a second layer, where you read 4KB at a time, and then using a pair of functions that do "skip" and "fetch" of the different fields would be a bit more work, but likely much faster).
Another option is to use mmap in Linux or MapViewOfFile in Windows. This method reduces the overhead in reading a file by a small portion, since there is one less copy required to transfer the data to the application.
Edit: I should add "Make sure you make comparative measurements", and if your application is meant to run on many machines, make sure you make measurements on more than one type of machine, with different alternatives of disk drive, processor and memory. You don't really want to tweak the code so that it runs 50% faster on your machine, but 25% slower on another machine.
The assert() statements are the most important part of this code so that if your platform ever changes and the width of your native types change then the assertions will fail. Instead of seeking, I would read to a dummy area. The p* variables make the code easier to read, IMO.
assert(sizeof x[0] == 8);
assert(sizeof y[0] == 8);
assert(sizeof z[0] == 8);
assert(sizeof d[0] == 8);
for (int i=0;i<n;i++) {
char unused[8];
char * px = (char *) &x[i];
char * py = (char *) &y[i];
char * pz = (char *) &z[i];
char * pd = (char *) &d[i];
fid.read(unused, 4);
fid.read(px, 8);
fid.read(unused, 8);
fid.read(py, 8);
fid.read(unused, 8);
fid.read(pz, 8);
fid.read(pd, 8);
d[i] = (d[i] - p)/p;
z[i] *= cc;
}
Related
I have a program that generates files containing random distributions of the character A - Z. I have written a method that reads these files (and counts each character) using fread with different buffer sizes in an attempt to determine the optimal block size for reads. Here is the method:
int get_histogram(FILE * fp, long *hist, int block_size, long *milliseconds, long *filelen)
{
char *buffer = new char[block_size];
bzero(buffer, block_size);
struct timeb t;
ftime(&t);
long start_in_ms = t.time * 1000 + t.millitm;
size_t bytes_read = 0;
while (!feof(fp))
{
bytes_read += fread(buffer, 1, block_size, fp);
if (ferror (fp))
{
return -1;
}
int i;
for (i = 0; i < block_size; i++)
{
int j;
for (j = 0; j < 26; j++)
{
if (buffer[i] == 'A' + j)
{
hist[j]++;
}
}
}
}
ftime(&t);
long end_in_ms = t.time * 1000 + t.millitm;
*milliseconds = end_in_ms - start_in_ms;
*filelen = bytes_read;
return 0;
}
However, when I plot bytes/second vs. block size (buffer size) using block sizes of 2 - 2^20, I get an optimal block size of 4 bytes -- which just can't be correct. Something must be wrong with my code but I can't find it.
Any advice is appreciated.
Regards.
EDIT:
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the optimal buffer size by recording the read times (plus computation time) for different buffer sizes. The file pointer is opened and closed by the calling code.
There are many bugs in this code:
It uses new[], which is C++.
It doesn't free the allocated memory.
It always loops over block_size bytes of input, not bytes_read as returned by fread().
Also, the actual histogram code is rather inefficient, since it seems to loop over each character to determine which character it is.
UPDATE: Removed claim that using feof() before I/O is wrong, since that wasn't true. Thanks to Eric for pointing this out in a comment.
You're not stating what platform you're running this on, and what compile time parameters you use.
Of course, the fread() involves some overhead, leaving user mode and returning. On the other hand, instead of setting the hist[] information directly, you're looping through the alphabet. This is unnecessary and, without optimization, causes some overhead per byte.
I'd re-test this with hist[j-26]++ or something similar.
Typically, the best timing would be achieved if your buffer size equals the system's buffer size for the given media.
Consider the following code snippet
double *x, *id;
int i, n; // = vector size
// allocate and zero x
// set id to 0:n-1
for(i=0; i<n; i++) {
long iid = (long)id[i];
if(iid>=0 && iid<n && (double)iid==id[i]){
x[iid] = 1;
} else break;
}
The code uses values in vector id of type double as indices into vector x. In order for the indices to be valid I verify that they are greater than or equal to 0, less than vector size n, and that doubles stored in id are in fact integers. In this example id stores integers from 1 to n, so all vectors are accessed linearly and branch prediction of the if statement should always work.
For n=1e8 the code takes 0.21s on my computer. Since it seems to me it is a computationally light-weight loop, I expect it to be memory bandwidth bounded. Based on the benchmarked memory bandwidth I expect it to run in 0.15s. I calculate the memory footprint as 8 bytes per id value, and 16 bytes per x value (it needs to be both written, and read from memory since I assume SSE streaming is not used). So a total of 24 bytes per vector entry.
The questions:
Am I wrong saying that this code should be memory bandwidth bounded, and that it can be improved?
If not, do you know a way in which I could improve the performance so that it works with the speed of the memory?
Or maybe everything is fine and I can not easily improve it otherwise than running it in parallel?
Changing the type of id is not an option - it must be double. Also, in the general case id and x have different sizes and must be kept as separate arrays - they come from different parts of the program. In short, I wonder if it is possible to write the bound checks and the type cast/integer validation in a more efficient manner.
For convenience, the entire code:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
static struct timeval tb, te;
void tic()
{
gettimeofday(&tb, NULL);
}
void toc(const char *idtxt)
{
long s,u;
gettimeofday(&te, NULL);
s=te.tv_sec-tb.tv_sec;
u=te.tv_usec-tb.tv_usec;
printf("%-30s%10li.%.6li\n", idtxt,
(s*1000000+u)/1000000, (s*1000000+u)%1000000);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
double *x = NULL;
double *id = NULL;
int i, n;
// vector size is a command line parameter
n = atoi(argv[1]);
printf("x size %i\n", n);
// not included in timing in MATLAB
x = calloc(sizeof(double),n);
memset(x, 0, sizeof(double)*n);
// create index vector
tic();
id = malloc(sizeof(double)*n);
for(i=0; i<n; i++) id[i] = i;
toc("id = 1:n");
// use id to index x and set all entries to 4
tic();
for(i=0; i<n; i++) {
long iid = (long)id[i];
if(iid>=0 && iid<n && (double)iid==id[i]){
x[iid] = 1;
} else break;
}
toc("x(id) = 1");
}
EDIT: Disregard if you can't split the arrays!
I think it can be improved by taking advantage of a common cache concept. You can either make data accesses close in time or location. With tight for-loops, you can achieve a better data hit-rate by shaping your data structures like your for-loop. In this case, you access two different arrays, usually the same indices in each array. Your machine is loading chunks of both arrays each iteration through that loop. To increase the use of each load, create a structure to hold an element of each array, and create a single array with that struct:
struct my_arrays
{
double x;
int id;
};
struct my_arrays* arr = malloc(sizeof(my_arrays)*n);
Now, each time you load data into cache, you'll hit everything you load because the arrays are close together.
EDIT: Since your intent is to check for an integer value, and you make the explicit assumption that the values are small enough to be represented precisely in a double with no loss of precision, then I think your comparison is fine.
My previous answer had a reference to beware comparing large doubles after implicit casting, and I referenced this:
What is the most effective way for float and double comparison?
It might be worth considering examination of double type representation.
For example, the following code shows how to compare a double number greater than 1 to 999:
bool check(double x)
{
union
{
double d;
uint32_t y[2];
};
d = x;
bool answer;
uint32_t exp = (y[1] >> 20) & 0x3ff;
uint32_t fraction1 = y[1] << (13 + exp); // upper bits of fractiona part
uint32_t fraction2 = y[0]; // lower 32 bits of fractional part
if (fraction2 != 0 || fraction1 != 0)
answer = false;
else if (exp > 8)
answer = false;
else if (exp == 8)
answer = (y[1] < 0x408f3800); // this is the representation of 999
else
answer = true;
return answer;
}
This looks like much code, but it might be vectorized easily (using e.g. SSE), and if your bound is a power of 2, it might simplify the code further.
I'm tying to implement a basic audio delay - but all I'm getting is garbage, probably something very obvious - but I can't seem to spot it...
Audio is processed via buffers that are determined at runtime.
I think I'm doing something horribly wrong with the pointers, tried looking at some other code - but they all seem "incomplete" always something rudimentary is missing - probably what's miss in my code as well.
// Process audio
// 1
void Gain::subProcessSimpleDelay( int bufferOffset, int sampleFrames )
{
// Assign pointers to your in/output buffers.
// Each buffer is an array of float samples.
float* in1 = bufferOffset + pinInput1.getBuffer();
float* in2 = bufferOffset + pinInput2.getBuffer();
float* out1 = bufferOffset + pinOutput1.getBuffer();
// SampleFrames = how many samples to process (can vary).
// Repeat (loop) that many times
for( int s = sampleFrames; s > 0; --s )
{
// get the sample 'POINTED TO' by in1.
float input1 = *in1;
float feedback = *in2;
float output;
unsigned short int p, r;
unsigned short int len;
len = 600;
// check at delay length calculation
if (len > 65535)
len = 65535;
// otherwise, a length of 0 will output the input from
// 65536 samples ago
else if (len < 1)
len = 1;
r = p - len; // loop
output = buffer[r];
buffer[p] = input1 + output * feedback;
p++;
*out1 = output;
// store the result in the output buffer.
// increment the pointers (move to next sample in buffers).
in1++;
in2++;
out1++;
}
}
Could anyone tell me what's wrong?
You haven't initialized p. Other things to be careful of in this code:-
Are you sure that sampleFrames + bufferOffset is less than the size of your input and output buffers? You could really do with a way to check that.
It's not clear where buffer comes from, or what else might be writing to it. If it's garbage before your code runs, you're going to end up with garbage everywhere, because the first thing you do is read from it.
You don't say what types pinInput1.getBuffer() etc. return. If they return a char*, and you just know that it happens to point to an array of floats, you need to cast the result to float* before you do any pointer arithmetic, to make sure you're advancing to the next float in the array, not the next byte of the array.
here's a problem I've solved from a programming problem website(codechef.com in case anyone doesn't want to see this solution before trying themselves). This solved the problem in about 5.43 seconds with the test data, others have solved this same problem with the same test data in 0.14 seconds but with much more complex code. Can anyone point out specific areas of my code where I am losing performance? I'm still learning C++ so I know there are a million ways I could solve this problem, but I'd like to know if I can improve my own solution with some subtle changes rather than rewrite the whole thing. Or if there are any relatively simple solutions which are comparable in length but would perform better than mine I'd be interested to see them also.
Please keep in mind I'm learning C++ so my goal here is to improve the code I understand, not just to be given a perfect solution.
Thanks
Problem:
The purpose of this problem is to verify whether the method you are using to read input data is sufficiently fast to handle problems branded with the enormous Input/Output warning. You are expected to be able to process at least 2.5MB of input data per second at runtime. Time limit to process the test data is 8 seconds.
The input begins with two positive integers n k (n, k<=10^7). The next n lines of input contain one positive integer ti, not greater than 10^9, each.
Output
Write a single integer to output, denoting how many integers ti are divisible by k.
Example
Input:
7 3
1
51
966369
7
9
999996
11
Output:
4
Solution:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
//n is number of integers to perform calculation on
//k is the divisor
//inputnum is the number to be divided by k
//total is the total number of inputnums divisible by k
int n,k,inputnum,total;
//initialize total to zero
total=0;
//read in n and k from stdin
scanf("%i%i",&n,&k);
//loop n times and if k divides into n, increment total
for (n; n>0; n--)
{
scanf("%i",&inputnum);
if(inputnum % k==0) total += 1;
}
//output value of total
printf("%i",total);
return 0;
}
The speed is not being determined by the computation—most of the time the program takes to run is consumed by i/o.
Add setvbuf calls before the first scanf for a significant improvement:
setvbuf(stdin, NULL, _IOFBF, 32768);
setvbuf(stdout, NULL, _IOFBF, 32768);
-- edit --
The alleged magic numbers are the new buffer size. By default, FILE uses a buffer of 512 bytes. Increasing this size decreases the number of times that the C++ runtime library has to issue a read or write call to the operating system, which is by far the most expensive operation in your algorithm.
By keeping the buffer size a multiple of 512, that eliminates buffer fragmentation. Whether the size should be 1024*10 or 1024*1024 depends on the system it is intended to run on. For 16 bit systems, a buffer size larger than 32K or 64K generally causes difficulty in allocating the buffer, and maybe managing it. For any larger system, make it as large as useful—depending on available memory and what else it will be competing against.
Lacking any known memory contention, choose sizes for the buffers at about the size of the associated files. That is, if the input file is 250K, use that as the buffer size. There is definitely a diminishing return as the buffer size increases. For the 250K example, a 100K buffer would require three reads, while a default 512 byte buffer requires 500 reads. Further increasing the buffer size so only one read is needed is unlikely to make a significant performance improvement over three reads.
I tested the following on 28311552 lines of input. It's 10 times faster than your code. What it does is read a large block at once, then finishes up to the next newline. The goal here is to reduce I/O costs, since scanf() is reading a character at a time. Even with stdio, the buffer is likely too small.
Once the block is ready, I parse the numbers directly in memory.
This isn't the most elegant of codes, and I might have some edge cases a bit off, but it's enough to get you going with a faster approach.
Here are the timings (without the optimizer my solution is only about 6-7 times faster than your original reference)
[xavier:~/tmp] dalke% g++ -O3 my_solution.cpp
[xavier:~/tmp] dalke% time ./a.out < c.dat
15728647
0.284u 0.057s 0:00.39 84.6% 0+0k 0+1io 0pf+0w
[xavier:~/tmp] dalke% g++ -O3 your_solution.cpp
[xavier:~/tmp] dalke% time ./a.out < c.dat
15728647
3.585u 0.087s 0:03.72 98.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Here's the code.
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
using namespace std;
const int BUFFER_SIZE=400000;
const int EXTRA=30; // well over the size of an integer
void read_to_newline(char *buffer) {
int c;
while (1) {
c = getc_unlocked(stdin);
if (c == '\n' || c == EOF) {
*buffer = '\0';
return;
}
*buffer++ = c;
}
}
int main() {
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE+EXTRA];
char *end_buffer;
char *startptr, *endptr;
//n is number of integers to perform calculation on
//k is the divisor
//inputnum is the number to be divided by k
//total is the total number of inputnums divisible by k
int n,k,inputnum,total,nbytes;
//initialize total to zero
total=0;
//read in n and k from stdin
read_to_newline(buffer);
sscanf(buffer, "%i%i",&n,&k);
while (1) {
// Read a large block of values
// There should be one integer per line, with nothing else.
// This might truncate an integer!
nbytes = fread(buffer, 1, BUFFER_SIZE, stdin);
if (nbytes == 0) {
cerr << "Reached end of file too early" << endl;
break;
}
// Make sure I read to the next newline.
read_to_newline(buffer+nbytes);
startptr = buffer;
while (n>0) {
inputnum = 0;
// I had used strtol but that was too slow
// inputnum = strtol(startptr, &endptr, 10);
// Instead, parse the integers myself.
endptr = startptr;
while (*endptr >= '0') {
inputnum = inputnum * 10 + *endptr - '0';
endptr++;
}
// *endptr might be a '\n' or '\0'
// Might occur with the last field
if (startptr == endptr) {
break;
}
// skip the newline; go to the
// first digit of the next number.
if (*endptr == '\n') {
endptr++;
}
// Test if this is a factor
if (inputnum % k==0) total += 1;
// Advance to the next number
startptr = endptr;
// Reduce the count by one
n--;
}
// Either we are done, or we need new data
if (n==0) {
break;
}
}
// output value of total
printf("%i\n",total);
return 0;
}
Oh, and it very much assumes the input data is in the right format.
try to replace if statement with count += ((n%k)==0);. that might help little bit.
but i think you really need to buffer your input into temporary array. reading one integer from input at a time is expensive. if you can separate data acquisition and data processing, compiler may be able to generate optimized code for mathematical operations.
The I/O operations are bottleneck. Try to limit them whenever you can, for instance load all data to a buffer or array with buffered stream in one step.
Although your example is so simple that I hardly see what you can eliminate - assuming it's a part of the question to do subsequent reading from stdin.
A few comments to the code: Your example doesn't make use of any streams - no need to include iostream header. You already load C library elements to global namespace by including stdio.h instead of C++ version of the header cstdio, so using namespace std not necessary.
You can read each line with gets(), and parse the strings yourself without scanf(). (Normally I wouldn't recommend gets(), but in this case, the input is well-specified.)
A sample C program to solve this problem:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int n,k,in,tot=0,i;
char s[1024];
gets(s);
sscanf(s,"%d %d",&n,&k);
while(n--) {
gets(s);
in=s[0]-'0';
for(i=1; s[i]!=0; i++) {
in=in*10 + s[i]-'0'; /* For each digit read, multiply the previous
value of in with 10 and add the current digit */
}
tot += in%k==0; /* returns 1 if in%k is 0, 0 otherwise */
}
printf("%d\n",tot);
return 0;
}
This program is approximately 2.6 times faster than the solution you gave above (on my machine).
You could try to read input line by line and use atoi() for each input row. This should be a little bit faster than scanf, because you remove the "scan" overhead of the format string.
I think the code is fine. I ran it on my computer in less than 0.3s
I even ran it on much larger inputs in less than a second.
How are you timing it?
One small thing you could do is remove the if statement.
start with total=n and then inside the loop:
total -= int( (input % k) / k + 1) //0 if divisible, 1 if not
Though I doubt CodeChef will accept it, one possibility is to use multiple threads, one to handle the I/O, and another to process the data. This is especially effective on a multi-core processor, but can help even with a single core. For example, on Windows you code use code like this (no real attempt at conforming with CodeChef requirements -- I doubt they'll accept it with the timing data in the output):
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include "queue.hpp"
namespace jvc = JVC_thread_queue;
struct buffer {
static const int initial_size = 1024 * 1024;
char buf[initial_size];
size_t size;
buffer() : size(initial_size) {}
};
jvc::queue<buffer *> outputs;
void read(HANDLE file) {
// read data from specified file, put into buffers for processing.
//
char temp[32];
int temp_len = 0;
int i;
buffer *b;
DWORD read;
do {
b = new buffer;
// If we have a partial line from the previous buffer, copy it into this one.
if (temp_len != 0)
memcpy(b->buf, temp, temp_len);
// Then fill the buffer with data.
ReadFile(file, b->buf+temp_len, b->size-temp_len, &read, NULL);
// Look for partial line at end of buffer.
for (i=read; b->buf[i] != '\n'; --i)
;
// copy partial line to holding area.
memcpy(temp, b->buf+i, temp_len=read-i);
// adjust size.
b->size = i;
// put buffer into queue for processing thread.
// transfers ownership.
outputs.add(b);
} while (read != 0);
}
// A simplified istrstream that can only read int's.
class num_reader {
buffer &b;
char *pos;
char *end;
public:
num_reader(buffer *buf) : b(*buf), pos(b.buf), end(pos+b.size) {}
num_reader &operator>>(int &value){
int v = 0;
// skip leading "stuff" up to the first digit.
while ((pos < end) && !isdigit(*pos))
++pos;
// read digits, create value from them.
while ((pos < end) && isdigit(*pos)) {
v = 10 * v + *pos-'0';
++pos;
}
value = v;
return *this;
}
// return stream status -- only whether we're at end
operator bool() { return pos < end; }
};
int result;
unsigned __stdcall processing_thread(void *) {
int value;
int n, k;
int count = 0;
// Read first buffer: n & k followed by values.
buffer *b = outputs.pop();
num_reader input(b);
input >> n;
input >> k;
while (input >> value && ++count < n)
result += ((value %k ) == 0);
// Ownership was transferred -- delete buffer when finished.
delete b;
// Then read subsequent buffers:
while ((b=outputs.pop()) && (b->size != 0)) {
num_reader input(b);
while (input >> value && ++count < n)
result += ((value %k) == 0);
// Ownership was transferred -- delete buffer when finished.
delete b;
}
return 0;
}
int main() {
HANDLE standard_input = GetStdHandle(STD_INPUT_HANDLE);
HANDLE processor = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, processing_thread, NULL, 0, NULL);
clock_t start = clock();
read(standard_input);
WaitForSingleObject(processor, INFINITE);
clock_t finish = clock();
std::cout << (float)(finish-start)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << " Seconds.\n";
std::cout << result;
return 0;
}
This uses a thread-safe queue class I wrote years ago:
#ifndef QUEUE_H_INCLUDED
#define QUEUE_H_INCLUDED
namespace JVC_thread_queue {
template<class T, unsigned max = 256>
class queue {
HANDLE space_avail; // at least one slot empty
HANDLE data_avail; // at least one slot full
CRITICAL_SECTION mutex; // protect buffer, in_pos, out_pos
T buffer[max];
long in_pos, out_pos;
public:
queue() : in_pos(0), out_pos(0) {
space_avail = CreateSemaphore(NULL, max, max, NULL);
data_avail = CreateSemaphore(NULL, 0, max, NULL);
InitializeCriticalSection(&mutex);
}
void add(T data) {
WaitForSingleObject(space_avail, INFINITE);
EnterCriticalSection(&mutex);
buffer[in_pos] = data;
in_pos = (in_pos + 1) % max;
LeaveCriticalSection(&mutex);
ReleaseSemaphore(data_avail, 1, NULL);
}
T pop() {
WaitForSingleObject(data_avail,INFINITE);
EnterCriticalSection(&mutex);
T retval = buffer[out_pos];
out_pos = (out_pos + 1) % max;
LeaveCriticalSection(&mutex);
ReleaseSemaphore(space_avail, 1, NULL);
return retval;
}
~queue() {
DeleteCriticalSection(&mutex);
CloseHandle(data_avail);
CloseHandle(space_avail);
}
};
}
#endif
Exactly how much you gain from this depends on the amount of time spent reading versus the amount of time spent on other processing. In this case, the other processing is sufficiently trivial that it probably doesn't gain much. If more time was spent on processing the data, multi-threading would probably gain more.
2.5mb/sec is 400ns/byte.
There are two big per-byte processes, file input and parsing.
For the file input, I would just load it into a big memory buffer. fread should be able to read that in at roughly full disc bandwidth.
For the parsing, sscanf is built for generality, not speed. atoi should be pretty fast. My habit, for better or worse, is to do it myself, as in:
#define DIGIT(c)((c)>='0' && (c) <= '9')
bool parsInt(char* &p, int& num){
while(*p && *p <= ' ') p++; // scan over whitespace
if (!DIGIT(*p)) return false;
num = 0;
while(DIGIT(*p)){
num = num * 10 + (*p++ - '0');
}
return true;
}
The loops, first over leading whitespace, then over the digits, should be nearly as fast as the machine can go, certainly a lot less than 400ns/byte.
Dividing two large numbers is hard. Perhaps an improvement would be to first characterize k a little by looking at some of the smaller primes. Let's say 2, 3, and 5 for now. If k is divisible by any of these, than inputnum also needs to be or inputnum is not divisible by k. Of course there are more tricks to play (you could use bitwise and of inputnum to 1 to determine whether you are divisible by 2), but I think just removing the low prime possibilities will give a reasonable speed improvement (worth a shot anyway).
I want to read sizeof(int) bytes from a char* array.
a) In what scenario's do we need to worry if endianness needs to be checked?
b) How would you read the first 4 bytes either taking endianness into consideration or not.
EDIT : The sizeof(int) bytes that I have read needs to be compared with an integer value.
What is the best approach to go about this problem
Do you mean something like that?:
char* a;
int i;
memcpy(&i, a, sizeof(i));
You only have to worry about endianess if the source of the data is from a different platform, like a device.
a) You only need to worry about "endianness" (i.e., byte-swapping) if the data was created on a big-endian machine and is being processed on a little-endian machine, or vice versa. There are many ways this can occur, but here are a couple of examples.
You receive data on a Windows machine via a socket. Windows employs a little-endian architecture while network data is "supposed" to be in big-endian format.
You process a data file that was created on a system with a different "endianness."
In either of these cases, you'll need to byte-swap all numbers that are bigger than 1 byte, e.g., shorts, ints, longs, doubles, etc. However, if you are always dealing with data from the same platform, endian issues are of no concern.
b) Based on your question, it sounds like you have a char pointer and want to extract the first 4 bytes as an int and then deal with any endian issues. To do the extraction, use this:
int n = *(reinterpret_cast<int *>(myArray)); // where myArray is your data
Obviously, this assumes myArray is not a null pointer; otherwise, this will crash since it dereferences the pointer, so employ a good defensive programming scheme.
To swap the bytes on Windows, you can use the ntohs()/ntohl() and/or htons()/htonl() functions defined in winsock2.h. Or you can write some simple routines to do this in C++, for example:
inline unsigned short swap_16bit(unsigned short us)
{
return (unsigned short)(((us & 0xFF00) >> 8) |
((us & 0x00FF) << 8));
}
inline unsigned long swap_32bit(unsigned long ul)
{
return (unsigned long)(((ul & 0xFF000000) >> 24) |
((ul & 0x00FF0000) >> 8) |
((ul & 0x0000FF00) << 8) |
((ul & 0x000000FF) << 24));
}
Depends on how you want to read them, I get the feeling you want to cast 4 bytes into an integer, doing so over network streamed data will usually end up in something like this:
int foo = *(int*)(stream+offset_in_stream);
The easy way to solve this is to make sure whatever generates the bytes does so in a consistent endianness. Typically the "network byte order" used by various TCP/IP stuff is
best: the library routines htonl and ntohl work very well with this, and they
are usually fairly well optimized.
However, if network byte order is not being used, you may need to do things in
other ways. You need to know two things: the size of an integer, and the byte order.
Once you know that, you know how many bytes to extract and in which order to put
them together into an int.
Some example code that assumes sizeof(int) is the right number of bytes:
#include <limits.h>
int bytes_to_int_big_endian(const char *bytes)
{
int i;
int result;
result = 0;
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(int); ++i)
result = (result << CHAR_BIT) + bytes[i];
return result;
}
int bytes_to_int_little_endian(const char *bytes)
{
int i;
int result;
result = 0;
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(int); ++i)
result += bytes[i] << (i * CHAR_BIT);
return result;
}
#ifdef TEST
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
const int correct = 0x01020304;
const char little[] = "\x04\x03\x02\x01";
const char big[] = "\x01\x02\x03\x04";
printf("correct: %0x\n", correct);
printf("from big-endian: %0x\n", bytes_to_int_big_endian(big));
printf("from-little-endian: %0x\n", bytes_to_int_little_endian(little));
return 0;
}
#endif
How about
int int_from_bytes(const char * bytes, _Bool reverse)
{
if(!reverse)
return *(int *)(void *)bytes;
char tmp[sizeof(int)];
for(size_t i = sizeof(tmp); i--; ++bytes)
tmp[i] = *bytes;
return *(int *)(void *)tmp;
}
You'd use it like this:
int i = int_from_bytes(bytes, SYSTEM_ENDIANNESS != ARRAY_ENDIANNESS);
If you're on a system where casting void * to int * may result in alignment conflicts, you can use
int int_from_bytes(const char * bytes, _Bool reverse)
{
int tmp;
if(reverse)
{
for(size_t i = sizeof(tmp); i--; ++bytes)
((char *)&tmp)[i] = *bytes;
}
else memcpy(&tmp, bytes, sizeof(tmp));
return tmp;
}
You shouldn't need to worry about endianess unless you are reading the bytes from a source created on a different machine, e.g. a network stream.
Given that, can't you just use a for loop?
void ReadBytes(char * stream) {
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(int); i++) {
char foo = stream[i];
}
}
}
Are you asking for something more complicated than that?
You need to worry about endianess only if the data you're reading is composed of numbers which are larger than one byte.
if you're reading sizeof(int) bytes and expect to interpret them as an int then endianess makes a difference. essentially endianness is the way in which a machine interprets a series of more than 1 bytes into a numerical value.
Just use a for loop that moves over the array in sizeof(int) chunks.
Use the function ntohl (found in the header <arpa/inet.h>, at least on Linux) to convert from bytes in the network order (network order is defined as big-endian) to local byte-order. That library function is implemented to perform the correct network-to-host conversion for whatever processor you're running on.
Why read when you can just compare?
bool AreEqual(int i, char *data)
{
return memcmp(&i, data, sizeof(int)) == 0;
}
If you are worrying about endianness when you need to convert all of integers to some invariant form. htonl and ntohl are good examples.