I'm creating a game in which I have a main loop. During one cycle of this loop, I have to convert int value to string about ~50-100 times. So far I've been using this function:
std::string Util::intToString(int val)
{
std::ostringstream s;
s << val;
return s.str();
}
But it doesn't seem to be quite efficient as I've encountered FPS drop from ~120 (without using this function) to ~95 (while using it).
Is there any other way to convert int to string that would be much more efficient than my function?
It's 1-72 range. I don't have to deal with negatives.
Pre-create an array/vector of 73 string objects, and use an index to get your string. Returning a const reference will let you save on allocations/deallocations, too:
// Initialize smallNumbers to strings "0", "1", "2", ...
static vector<string> smallNumbers;
const string& smallIntToString(unsigned int val) {
return smallNumbers[val < smallNumbers.size() ? val : 0];
}
The standard std::to_string function might be a useful.
However, in this case I'm wondering if maybe it's not the copying of the string when returning it might be as big a bottleneck? If so you could pass the destination string as a reference argument to the function instead. However, if you have std::to_string then the compiler probably is C++11 compatible and can use move semantics instead of copying.
Yep — fall back on functions from C, as explored in this previous answer:
namespace boost {
template<>
inline std::string lexical_cast(const int& arg)
{
char buffer[65]; // large enough for arg < 2^200
ltoa( arg, buffer, 10 );
return std::string( buffer ); // RVO will take place here
}
}//namespace boost
In theory, this new specialisation will take effect throughout the rest of the Translation Unit in which you defined it. ltoa is much faster (despite being non-standard) than constructing and using a stringstream.
However, I've experienced problems with name conflicts between instantiations of this specialisation, and instantiations of the original function template, between competing shared libraries.
In order to get around that, I actually just give this function a whole new name entirely:
template <typename T>
inline std::string fast_lexical_cast(const T& arg)
{
return boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(arg);
}
template <>
inline std::string my_fast_lexical_cast(const int& arg)
{
char buffer[65];
if (!ltoa(arg, buffer, 10)) {
boost::throw_exception(boost::bad_lexical_cast(
typeid(std::string), typeid(int)
));
}
return std::string(buffer);
}
Usage: std::string myString = fast_lexical_cast<std::string>(42);
Disclaimer: this modification is reverse-engineered from Kirill's original SO code, not the version that I created and put into production from my company codebase. I can't think right now, though, of any other significant modifications that I made to it.
Something like this:
const int size = 12;
char buf[size+1];
buf[size] = 0;
int index = size;
bool neg = false
if (val < 0) { // Obviously don't need this if val is always positive.
neg = true;
val = -val;
}
do
{
buf[--index] = (val % 10) + '0';
val /= 10;
} while(val);
if (neg)
{
buf[--index] = '-';
}
return std::string(&buf[index]);
I use this:
void append_uint_to_str(string & s, unsigned int i)
{
if(i > 9)
append_uint_to_str(s, i / 10);
s += '0' + i % 10;
}
If You want negative insert:
if(i < 0)
{
s += '-';
i = -i;
}
at the beginning of function.
Related
It is a leet code problem under the subcategory of string, medium problem.
Query: My program is returning right result for all the test cases at the run time and but when I submit, same test cases are not passing.
I also made a video, click here to watch.
My Code is:
string convert(string s, int numRows) {
int loc_rows = numRows-2;
int i=0;
int a=0,b=0;
int arr[1000][1000];
while(i<s.length())
{
if(a<numRows)
{
arr[a][b] = s[i];
a++;
i++;
}
else if(a>=numRows)
{
if(loc_rows>=1)
{
b++;
arr[loc_rows][b]=s[i];
i++;
loc_rows--;
}
else{
loc_rows=numRows-2;
b++;
a=0;
}
}
}
string result="";
for(int d=0;d<numRows;d++)
{
for(int y=0;y<b+1;y++)
{
char temp = (char)arr[d][y];
if((temp>='a' and temp<='z') or (temp>='A' and temp<='Z') )
result+=temp;
}
}
return result;
}
I believe the issue might be your un-initialised arrays / variables.
Try setting initialising your array: int arr[1000][1000] = {0};
live example failing: https://godbolt.org/z/dxf13P
live example passing: https://godbolt.org/z/8vYEv6
You can't rely on the data that is in these arrays so initialising the values is quite important.
Note: this is because you rely on the empty values in the array to be not a letter ([a-zA-Z]). So that you can re-construct your output with your final loop which attempts to print the characters only. This works the first time around because luckily arr contains 0's in the gaps between your values (or at least not letters). The second time around it contains some junk from the first time around (really - you don't know what this is going to be, but in practise it is probably just the values you left in there from last time). So even though you put in the correct values into arr each time - your final loop finds some of the old non-alpha values in the array - hence your program is incorrect...
Alternatively, we could also use unsigned int to make it just a bit more efficient:
// The following block might slightly improve the execution time;
// Can be removed;
static const auto __optimize__ = []() {
std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
std::cin.tie(NULL);
std::cout.tie(NULL);
return 0;
}();
// Most of headers are already included;
// Can be removed;
#include <cstdint>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
static const struct Solution {
using ValueType = std::uint_fast16_t;
static const std::string convert(
const std::string s,
const int num_rows
) {
if (num_rows == 1) {
return s;
}
std::vector<std::string> res(num_rows);
ValueType row = 0;
ValueType direction = -1;
for (ValueType index = 0; index < std::size(s); ++index) {
if (!(index % (num_rows - 1))) {
direction *= -1;
}
res[row].push_back(s[index]);
row += direction;
}
std::string converted;
for (const auto& str : res) {
converted += str;
}
return converted;
}
};
I thought I'd try selecting different options as strings by hashing them, but this doesn't work:
#include <type_traits>
#include <string>
inline void selectMenuOptionString(const std::string& str)
{
switch (std::hash<std::string>()(str))
{
case std::hash<std::string>()(std::string("Selection one")) : break;
// Expression must have a constant value
}
}
inline void selectMenuOptionString2(const std::string& str)
{
size_t selectionOneHash = std::hash<std::string>()(std::string("Selection one"));
switch (std::hash<std::string>()(str))
{
case selectionOneHash: // Expression must have a constant value
// The variable of selectionOneHash cannot be used as a constant
}
constexpr size_t hash = std::hash<int>()(6); // Expression must have a constant value
}
It seems I can't get hash values at compile time. From what I've read each different input should yield the same unique output every time, with a very low chance of collision. Given these properties couldn't the hash value be calculated at compile time? I don't know much at all about hashing, I usually use an unordered_map, but I wanted to try something new for learning's sake.
std::hash::operator() isn't constexpr, so you can't just use it. Instead, you'd have to write your own constexpr hash function. For example, the following is the FNV-1a hash algorithm (untested):
template <typename Str>
constexpr size_t hashString(const Str& toHash)
{
// For this example, I'm requiring size_t to be 64-bit, but you could
// easily change the offset and prime used to the appropriate ones
// based on sizeof(size_t).
static_assert(sizeof(size_t) == 8);
// FNV-1a 64 bit algorithm
size_t result = 0xcbf29ce484222325; // FNV offset basis
for (char c : toHash) {
result ^= c;
result *= 1099511628211; // FNV prime
}
return result;
}
And then you can use it:
int selectMenuOptionString(const std::string& str)
{
switch (hashString(str))
{
case hashString(std::string_view("Selection one")): return 42;
default: return 0;
}
}
Note that if you wrote hashString("Selection one"), it would actually hash the null terminator as well, so you might want to have an overload to catch string literals, such as:
template <size_t N>
constexpr size_t hashString(char const (&toHash)[N])
{
return hashString(std::string_view(toHash));
}
Demo
You'll need to implement your own hash function, because there's no suitable instantiation of std::hash that's constexpr. Here's a cheap-and-dirty...
EDIT: In order not to be humiliated too badly by Justin's answer, I added a 32 bit branch.
constexpr size_t hash(const char *str) {
static_assert(sizeof(size_t) == 8 || sizeof(size_t) == 4);
size_t h = 0;
if constexpr(sizeof(size_t) == 8) {
h = 1125899906842597L; // prime
} else {
h = 4294967291L;
}
int i = 0;
while (str[i] != 0) {
h = 31 * h + str[i++];
}
return h;
}
I just wanted to add this because I think it's cool. The constexpr strlen I got from a question here: constexpr strlen
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
int constexpr strlength(const char* str)
{
return *str ? 1 + strlength(str + 1) : 0;
}
size_t constexpr Hash(const char *first)
{ // FNV-1a hash function
const size_t FNVoffsetBasis = 14695981039346656037ULL;
const size_t FNVprime = 1099511628211ULL;
const size_t count = strlength(first);
size_t val = FNVoffsetBasis;
for (size_t next = 0; next < count; ++next)
{
val ^= (size_t)first[next];
val *= FNVprime;
}
return val;
}
inline void selectMenuOptionString(const std::string& str)
{
switch (Hash(str.c_str()))
{
case Hash("Selection one"): /*Do something*/ break;
case Hash("Selection two"): /*Do something*/ break;
}
}
int main()
{
static_assert(strlength("Hello") == 5, "String length not equal");
}
You can't get the hash of a runtime value at compile-time, no.
Even if you passed std::hash a constant expression, it is not defined to be able to do its hashing work at compile-time.
As far as I know (which isn't far), you'd have to come up with some monstrous template metahackery (or, worse, macros!) to do this. Personally, if your text input is known at build, I'd just pregenerate a hash outside of the code, perhaps in some Python-driven pre-build step.
I'm writing a program that performs a simple rotation (think like rot13) on a string taken from user input. My problem is that I want to change each character in the string's ASCII value by a different amount each time - and so I'm using a for loop to go through the string, and calling a function that generates a random number each time. However, I want to be able to return this number so that I can "unscramble" the string at a later date. I also need to return the string though, obviously.
Here's my code:
int ranFunction()
{
int number = rand() % 31;
return number;
}
string rotFunction(string words)
{
int upper_A = 65;
int lower_z = 122;
int rand_int = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < words.length(); i++)
{
rand_int = ranFunction();
if (words[i] >= upper_A && words[i] <= lower_z) {
words[i] -= rand_int;
}
}
return words;
}
I'm hoping to get rotFunction to return words AND an integer based on whatever rand_int happens to be each time.
Just a note: the numbers I'm using RE: ascii values etc are totally arbitrary right now, just there for testing.
To return two different types use std::pair
std::pair<T1,T2> foo(){
return std::make_pair(v1,v2);
}
Example:
std::pair<int,float> foo(){
return std::make_pair(5,0.5f);
}
To return more than two different types use std::tuple:
std::tuple<T1,T2,...,Tn> foo(){
return std::make_pair(v1,v2,...,Tn);
}
Example:
std::tuple<int,float,std::string> foo(){
return std::make_tuple(5,0.5f,"sss");
}
A simple way would be to return a struct or class type.
struct rotReturn
{
int ran;
std::string str;
};
rotReturn rotFunction(std::string words)
{
// what you have, except for the return
rotReturn retval
retval.ran = rand_int;
retval.str = words;
return retval;
}
Obviously, it is possible to optimise and use the structure to be returned within the function, rather than using separate variables for intermediate results.
Alternatives include returning an std::pair<int, std::string> or (for more values to be bundled), a std::tuple. Both of these are specialised struct or class types.
It is also possible to pass such types to functions, by reference or pointer (address), so the caller can pass an object which the function stores data into.
if statement looks too awkward, because i need a possibility to increase the number of constatnts.
Sorry for leading you into delusion by that "constant" instead of what i meant.
Add all your constants to a std::set then you can check if the set contains your string with
std::set<std::string> myLookup;
//populate the set with your strings here
set<std::string>::size_type i;
i = myLookup.count(searchTerm);
if( i )
std::cout << "Found";
else
std::cout << "Not found";
Depends whether you care about performance.
If not, then the simplest code is probably to put the various strings in an array (or vector if you mean you want to increase the number of constants at run time). This will also be pretty fast for a small number of strings:
static const char *const strings[] = { "fee", "fie", "fo", "fum" };
static const int num_strings = sizeof(strings) / sizeof(char*);
Then either:
int main() {
const char *search = "foe";
bool match = false;
for (int i = 0; i < num_strings; ++i) {
if (std::strcmp(search, strings[i]) == 0) match = true;
}
}
Or:
struct stringequal {
const char *const lhs;
stringequal(const char *l) : lhs(l) {}
bool operator()(const char *rhs) {
return std::strcmp(lhs, rhs) == 0;
}
};
int main() {
const char *search = "foe";
std::find_if(strings, strings+num_strings, stringequal(search));
}
[Warning: I haven't tested the above code, and I've got the signatures wrong several times already...]
If you do care about performance, and there are a reasonable number of strings, then one quick option would be something like a Trie. But that's a lot of effort since there isn't one in the standard C++ library. You can get much of the benefit either using a sorted array/vector, searched with std::binary_search:
// These strings MUST be in ASCII-alphabetical order. Don't add "foo" to the end!
static const char *const strings[] = { "fee", "fie", "fo", "fum" };
static const int num_strings = sizeof(strings) / sizeof(char*);
bool stringcompare(const char *lhs, const char *rhs) {
return std::strcmp(lhs, rhs) < 0;
}
std::binary_search(strings, strings+num_strings, "foe", stringcompare);
... or use a std::set. But unless you're changing the set of strings at runtime, there is no advantage to using a set over a sorted array with binary search, and a set (or vector) has to be filled in with code whereas an array can be statically initialized. I think C++0x will improve things, with initializer lists for collections.
Put the strings to be compared in a static vector or set and then use std::find algorithm.
The technically best solution is: build a 'perfect hash function' tailored to your set of string constants, so later there are no collisions during hashing.
const char * values[]= { "foo", "bar", ..., 0 };
bool IsValue( const std::string & s ) {
int i = 0;
while( values[i] ) {
if ( s == values[i] ) {
return true;
}
i++;
}
return false;
}
Or use a std::set.
Is there any way to return an array from a function? More specifically, I've created this function:
char bin[8];
for(int i = 7; i >= 0; i--)
{
int ascii='a';
if(2^i-ascii >= 0)
{
bin[i]='1';
ascii=2^i-ascii;
}
else
{
bin[i]='0';
}
}
and I need a way to return bin[].
You can't do that but you can:
return a dynamicaly allocated array - best owned by a smart pointer so that the caller does not have to care about deallocating memory for it - you could also return something like an std::vector this way.
populate an array/vector passed to you as an argument by pointer (suggested) or a non const reference.
Your array is a local variable allocated on the stack. You should use new [] to allocate it on the heap. Then you can just say: return bin;. Beware that you will have to explicitly free it with delete [] when you are done with it.
You are really asking the wrong question. If you want to do string processing in C++, use the std::string and/or std::vector classes, not arrays of char. Your code then becomes:
vector <char> func() {
vector <char> bin(8);
for( int i = 7; i >= 0; i-- ) {
int ascii='a';
if ( 2 ^ i - ascii >= 0 ) {
bin[i] = '1';
ascii = 2^i - ascii;
}
else {
bin[i] ='0';
}
}
return bin;
}
I think your best bet is to use a vector. It can function in many ways like an array and has several upsides (length stored with type, automatic memory management).
void Calculate( std::vector<char>& bin) {
for(int i = 7; i >= 0; i--)
{
int ascii='a';
if(2^i-ascii >= 0)
{
bin.push_back('1');
ascii=2^i-ascii;
}
else
{
bin.push_back('0');
}
}
}
If you want to return a copy of the array (might make sense for small arrays) and the array has fixed size, you can enclose it in a struct;
struct ArrayWrapper {
char _bin[8];
};
ArrayWrapper func()
{
ArrayWrapper x;
// Do your stuff here using x._bin instead of plain bin
return x;
}
Or just use a std::vector as has been already suggested.
Similar implemented to #ari's answer, i want to say there is already a boost solution, boost::array solving your problem:
boost::array<char, 8> f() {
boost::array<char, 8> bin;
for(int i = 7; i >= 0; i--) {
int ascii = 'a';
if(2 ^ i-ascii >= 0) {
bin[i] = '1';
ascii = 2 ^ i-ascii;
} else {
bin[i] = '0';
}
}
}
...
boost::array<char, 8> a(f());
[I'm not sure what you want to do with that algorithm though, but note that i think you want to do 1 << i (bit-wise shift) instead of 2 ^ i which is not exponentiation in C++.]
Boost array is a normal array, just wrapped in a struct, so you lose no performance what-so-ever. It will also be available in the next C++ version as std::array, and is very easy to do yourself if you don't need the begin()/size()/data()-sugar it adds (to be a container). Just go with the most basic one:
template<typename T, size_t S>
struct array {
T t[S];
T& operator[](ptrdiff_t i) { return t[i]; }
T const& operator[](ptrdiff_t i) const { return t[i]; }
};
But as usual, use the tools already written by other people, in this case boost::array. It's also got the advantage of being an aggregate (that's why it has no user declared constructor), so it allows initializing with a brace enclosed list:
boost::array<int, 4> a = {{ 1, 2, 3, 4 }};
you need to pass array bin as an argument in your function.
array always pass by address, therefore you dont need to return any value.
it will automatically show you all changes in your main program
void FunctionAbc(char bin[], int size);
void FuncationAbc(bin, size)
{
for(int i = 7; i >= 0; i--)
{
int ascii='a';
if(2^i-ascii >= 0)
{
bin[i]='1';
ascii=2^i-ascii;
}
else
{
bin[i]='0';
}
}
}
You'll want to pass by reference, as follows:
void modifyBin(char (&bin)[8])
{
/* your function goes here and modifies bin */
}
int main()
{
char bin[8];
modifyBin(bin);
/* bin has been updated */
return 0;
}
I think that everyone else answered this one... use a container instead of an array. Here's the std::string version:
std::string foo() {
int ascii = 'a';
std::string result("00000000");
for (int i=7; i>=0; --i) {
if (2^i-ascii >= 0) {
result[i] = '1';
ascii = 2^i-ascii;
}
}
return result;
}
I'm not really sure if 2^i-ascii is want you want or not. This will be parsed as (2 ^ (i - ascii)) which is a little strange.