Related
I am implementing a BigInt class that must support arbitrary-precision operations on integers.
Quote from "The Algorithm Design Manual" by S.Skiena:
What base should I do [editor's note: arbitrary-precision] arithmetic in? - It is perhaps simplest to implement your own high-precision arithmetic package in decimal, and thus represent each integer as a string of base-10 digits. However, it is far more efficient to use a higher base, ideally equal to the square root of the largest integer supported fully by hardware arithmetic.
How do I find the largest integer supported fully by hardware arithmetic? If I understand correctly, being my machine an x64 based PC, the largest integer supported should be 2^64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 - Architectural features: 64-bit integer capability), so I should use base 2^32, but is there a way in c++ to get this size programmatically so I can typedef my base_type to it?
You might be searching for std::uintmax_t and std::intmax_t.
static_cast<unsigned>(-1) is the max int. e.g. all bits set to 1 Is that what you are looking for ?
You can also use std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() or UINT_MAX, and all of these will yield the same result. and what these values tell is the maximum capacity of unsigned type. e.g. the maximum value that can be stored into unsigned type.
int (and, by extension, unsigned int) is the "natural" size for the architecture. So a type that has half the bits of an int should work reasonably well. Beyond that, you really need to configure for the particular hardware; the type of the storage unit and the type of the calculation unit should be typedefs in a header and their type selected to match the particular processor. Typically you'd make this selection after running some speed tests.
INT_MAX doesn't help here; it tells you the largest value that can be stored in an int, which may or may not be the largest value that the hardware can support directly. Similarly, INTMAX_MAX is no help, either; it tells you the largest value that can be stored as an integral type, but doesn't tell you whether operations on such a value can be done in hardware or require software emulation.
Back in the olden days, the rule of thumb was that operations on ints were done directly in hardware, and operations on longs were done as multiple integer operations, so operations on longs were much slower than operations on ints. That's no longer a good rule of thumb.
Things are not so black and white. There are MAY issues here, and you may have other things worth considering. I've now written two variable precision tools (in MATLAB, VPI and HPF) and I've chosen different approaches in each. It also matters whether you are writing an integer form or a high precision floating point form.
The difference is, integers can grow without bound in the number of digits. But if you are doing a floating point implementation with a user specified number of digits, you always know the number of digits in the mantissa. This is fixed.
First of all, it is simplest to use a single integer for each decimal digit. This makes many things work nicely, so I/O is easy. It is a bit inefficient in terms of storage though. Adds and subtracts are easy though. And if you use integers for each digit, then multiplies are even easy. In MATLAB for example, conv is pretty fast, though it is still O(n^2). I think gmp uses an fft multiply, so faster yet.
But assuming you use a basic conv multiply, then you need to worry about overflows for numbers with a huge number of digits. For example, suppose I store decimal digits as 8 bit signed integers. Using conv, followed by carries, I can do a multiply. For example, suppose I have the number 9999.
N = repmat(9,1,4)
N =
9 9 9 9
conv(N,N)
ans =
81 162 243 324 243 162 81
Thus even to form the product 9999*9999, I'd need to be careful as the digits will overflow an 8 bit signed integer. If I'm using 16 bit integers to accumulate the convolution products, then a multiply between a pair of 1000 digits integers can cause an overflow.
N = repmat(9,1,1000);
max(conv(N,N))
ans =
81000
So if you are worried about the possibility of millions of digits, you need to watch out.
One alternative is to use what I call migits, essentially working in a higher base than 10. Thus by using base 1000000 and doubles to store the elements, I can store 6 decimal digits per element. A convolution will still cause overflows for larger numbers though.
N = repmat(999999,1,10000);
log2(max(conv(N,N)))
ans =
53.151
Thus a convolution between two sets of base 1000000 migits that are 10000 migits in length (60000 decimal digits) will overflow the point where a double cannot represent an integer exactly.
So again, if you will use numbers with millions of digits, beware. A nice thing about the use of a higher base of migits with a convolution based multiply is since the conv operation is O(n^2), then going from base 10 to base 100 gives you a 4-1 speedup. Going to base 1000 yields a 9-1 speedup in the convolutions.
Finally, the use of a base other than 10 as migits makes it logical to implement guard digits (for floats.) In floating point arithmetic, you should never trust the least significant bits of a computation, so it makes sense to keep a few digits hidden in the shadows. So when I wrote my HPF tool, I gave the user control of how many digits would be carried along. This is not an issue for integers of course.
There are many other issues. I discuss them in the docs carried with those tools.
I have developed my own BigInteger library in C++, for didactic purpose, initially I have used base 10 and it works fine for add, subtract and multiply, but for some algorithms such as exponentiation, modular exponentiation and division it appears to be more appropriate use base 2.
I am thinking restart my project from scratch and I would know what base do you think is more adequate and why?. Thanks in advance!
If you look at most BigNum type libraries you will see that they are built on top of the existing "SmallNum" data types. These "SmallNum" data types (short, int, long, float, double, ...) are in binary for too many reasons to count. Rather than a vector of base 10 digits, your code will be much faster (much, much, much faster!) if work with a vector of (for example) unsigned ints.
This is one of those places where performance does count. Suppose you use a BigNum package to solve a problem that could be solved without resorting to BigNums. Even the best BigNum library will be much slower (much, much slower) than will a simplistic, non-BigNum approach. If you try to solve a problem that is beyond the bounds of the standard representations that performance penalty will make things even worse.
The best way to overcome this inherent penalty is to take as much advantage of the builtin types as you possibly can.
A base the same as the word size on your target machine, where you have word x word = doubleword as a primitive. The primitive operations work out neatly in terms of machine instructions.
A base 10 representation makes sense for a BigDecimal type, where you need to need to represent decimal fractions exactly (for financial calculations and the like).
I can't see much benefit to using a base 10 representation for a BigInteger. It makes string conversion really easy, but at the expense of making mathematical operations much more complicated. This doesn't seem like a good tradeoff in most cases.
I was thinking about an algorithm in division of large numbers: dividing with remainder bigint C by bigint D, where we know the representation of C in base b, and D is of form b^k-1. It's probably the easiest to show it on an example. Let's try dividing C=21979182173 by D=999.
We write the number as sets of three digits: 21 979 182 173
We take sums (modulo 999) of consecutive sets, starting from the left: 21 001 183 356
We add 1 to those sets preceding the ones where we "went over 999": 22 001 183 356
Indeed, 21979182173/999=22001183 and remainder 356.
I've calculated the complexity and, if I'm not mistaken, the algorithm should work in O(n), n being the number of digits of C in base b representation. I've also done a very crude and unoptimized version of the algorithm (only for b=10) in C++, tested it against GMP's general integer division algorithm and it really does seem to fare better than GMP. I couldn't find anything like this implemented anywhere I looked, so I had to resort to testing it against general division.
I found several articles which discuss what seem to be quite similar matters, but none of them concentrate on actual implementations, especially in bases different than 2. I suppose that's because of the way numbers are internally stored, although the mentioned algorithm seems useful for, say, b=10, even taking that into account. I also tried contacting some other people, but, again, to no avail.
Thus, my question would be: is there an article or a book or something where the aforementioned algorithm is described, possibly discussing the implementations? If not, would it make sense for me to try and implement and test such an algorithm in, say, C/C++ or is this algorithm somehow inherently bad?
Also, I'm not a programmer and while I'm reasonably OK at programming, I admittedly don't have much knowledge of computer "internals". Thus, pardon my ignorance - it's highly possible there are one or more very stupid things in this post. Sorry once again.
Thanks a lot!
Further clarification of points raised in the comments/answers:
Thanks, everyone - as I didn't want to comment on all the great answers and advice with the same thing, I'd just like to address one point a lot of you touched on.
I am fully aware that working in bases 2^n is, generally speaking, clearly the most efficient way of doing things. Pretty much all bigint libraries use 2^32 or whatever. However, what if (and, I emphasize, it would be useful only for this particular algorithm!) we implement bigints as an array of digits in base b? Of course, we require b here to be "reasonable": b=10, the most natural case, seems reasonable enough. I know it's more or less inefficient both considering memory and time, taking into account how numbers are internally stored, but I have been able to, if my (basic and possibly somehow flawed) tests are correct, produce results faster than GMP's general division, which would give sense to implementing such an algorithm.
Ninefingers notices I'd have to use in that case an expensive modulo operation. I hope not: I can see if old+new crossed, say, 999, just by looking at the number of digits of old+new+1. If it has 4 digits, we're done. Even more, since old<999 and new<=999, we know that if old+new+1 has 4 digits (it can't have more), then, (old+new)%999 equals deleting the leftmost digit of (old+new+1), which I presume we can do cheaply.
Of course, I'm not disputing obvious limitations of this algorithm nor I claim it can't be improved - it can only divide with a certain class of numbers and we have to a priori know the representation of dividend in base b. However, for b=10, for instance, the latter seems natural.
Now, say we have implemented bignums as I outlined above. Say C=(a_1a_2...a_n) in base b and D=b^k-1. The algorithm (which could be probably much more optimized) would go like this. I hope there aren't many typos.
if k>n, we're obviously done
add a zero (i.e. a_0=0) at the beginning of C (just in case we try to divide, say, 9999 with 99)
l=n%k (mod for "regular" integers - shouldn't be too expensive)
old=(a_0...a_l) (the first set of digits, possibly with less than k digits)
for (i=l+1; i < n; i=i+k) (We will have floor(n/k) or so iterations)
new=(a_i...a_(i+k-1))
new=new+old (this is bigint addition, thus O(k))
aux=new+1 (again, bigint addition - O(k) - which I'm not happy about)
if aux has more than k digits
delete first digit of aux
old=old+1 (bigint addition once again)
fill old with zeroes at the beginning so it has as much digits as it should
(a_(i-k)...a_(i-1))=old (if i=l+1, (a _ 0...a _ l)=old)
new=aux
fill new with zeroes at the beginning so it has as much digits as it should
(a_i...a_(i+k-1)=new
quot=(a_0...a_(n-k+1))
rem=new
There, thanks for discussing this with me - as I said, this does seem to me to be an interesting "special case" algorithm to try to implement, test and discuss, if nobody sees any fatal flaws in it. If it's something not widely discussed so far, even better. Please, let me know what you think. Sorry about the long post.
Also, just a few more personal comments:
#Ninefingers: I actually have some (very basic!) knowledge of how GMP works, what it does and of general bigint division algorithms, so I was able to understand much of your argument. I'm also aware GMP is highly optimized and in a way customizes itself for different platforms, so I'm certainly not trying to "beat it" in general - that seems as much fruitful as attacking a tank with a pointed stick. However, that's not the idea of this algorithm - it works in very special cases (which GMP does not appear to cover). On an unrelated note, are you sure general divisions are done in O(n)? The most I've seen done is M(n). (And that can, if I understand correctly, in practice (Schönhage–Strassen etc.) not reach O(n). Fürer's algorithm, which still doesn't reach O(n), is, if I'm correct, almost purely theoretical.)
#Avi Berger: This doesn't actually seem to be exactly the same as "casting out nines", although the idea is similar. However, the aforementioned algorithm should work all the time, if I'm not mistaken.
Your algorithm is a variation of a base 10 algorithm known as "casting out nines". Your example is using base 1000 and "casting out" 999's (one less than the base). This used to be taught in elementary school as way to do a quick check on hand calculations. I had a high school math teacher who was horrified to learn that it wasn't being taught anymore and filled us in on it.
Casting out 999's in base 1000 won't work as a general division algorithm. It will generate values that are congruent modulo 999 to the actual quotient and remainder - not the actual values. Your algorithm is a bit different and I haven't checked if it works, but it is based on effectively using base 1000 and the divisor being 1 less than the base. If you wanted to try it for dividing by 47, you would have to convert to a base 48 number system first.
Google "casting out nines" for more information.
Edit: I originally read your post a bit too quickly, and you do know of this as a working algorithm. As #Ninefingers and #Karl Bielefeldt have stated more clearly than me in their comments, what you aren't including in your performance estimate is the conversion into a base appropriate for the particular divisor at hand.
I feel the need to add to this based on my comment. This isn't an answer, but an explanation as to the background.
A bignum library uses what are called limbs - search for mp_limb_t in the gmp source, which are usually a fixed-size integer field.
When you do something like addition, one way (albeit inefficient) to approach it is to do this:
doublelimb r = limb_a + limb_b + carryfrompreviousiteration
This double-sized limb catches the overflow of limb_a + limb_b in the case that the sum is bigger than the limb size. So if the total is bigger than 2^32 if we're using uint32_t as our limb size, the overflow can be caught.
Why do we need this? Well, what you typically do is loop through all the limbs - you've done this yourself in dividing your integer up and going through each one - but we do it LSL first (so the smallest limb first) just as you'd do arithmetic by hand.
This might seem inefficient, but this is just the C way of doing things. To really break out the big guns, x86 has adc as an instruction - add with carry. What this does is an arithmetic and on your fields and sets the carry bit if the arithmetic overflows the size of the register. The next time you do add or adc, the processor factors in the carry bit too. In subtraction it's called the borrow flag.
This also applies to shift operations. As such, this feature of the processor is crucial to what makes bignums fast. So the fact is, there's electronic circuitry in the chip for doing this stuff - doing it in software is always going to be slower.
Without going into too much detail, operations are built up from this ability to add, shift, subtract etc. They're crucial. Oh and you use the full width of your processor's register per limb if you're doing it right.
Second point - conversion between bases. You cannot take a value in the middle of a number and change it's base, because you can't account for the overflow from the digit beneath it in your original base, and that number can't account for the overflow from the digit beneath... and so on. In short, every time you want to change base, you need to convert the entire bignum from the original base to your new base back again. So you have to walk the bignum (all the limbs) three times at least. Or, alternatively, detect overflows expensively in all other operations... remember, now you need to do modulo operations to work out if you overflowed, whereas before the processor was doing it for us.
I should also like to add that whilst what you've got is probably quick for this case, bear in mind that as a bignum library gmp does a fair bit of work for you, like memory management. If you're using mpz_ you're using an abstraction above what I've described here, for starters. Finally, gmp uses hand optimised assembly with unrolled loops for just about every platform you've ever heard of, plus more. There's a very good reason it ships with Mathematica, Maple et al.
Now, just for reference, some reading material.
Modern Computer Arithmetic is a Knuth-like work for arbitrary precision libraries.
Donald Knuth, Seminumerical Algorithms (The Art of Computer Programming Volume II).
William Hart's blog on implementing algorithm's for bsdnt in which he discusses various division algorithms. If you're interested in bignum libraries, this is an excellent resource. I considered myself a good programmer until I started following this sort of stuff...
To sum it up for you: division assembly instructions suck, so people generally compute inverses and multiply instead, as you do when defining division in modular arithmetic. The various techniques that exist (see MCA) are mostly O(n).
Edit: Ok, not all of the techniques are O(n). Most of the techniques called div1 (dividing by something not bigger than a limb are O(n). When you go bigger you end up with O(n^2) complexity; this is hard to avoid.
Now, could you implement bigints as an array of digits? Well yes, of course you could. However, consider the idea just under addition
/* you wouldn't do this just before add, it's just to
show you the declaration.
*/
uint32_t* x = malloc(num_limbs*sizeof(uint32_t));
uint32_t* y = malloc(num_limbs*sizeof(uint32_t));
uint32_t* a = malloc(num_limbs*sizeof(uint32_t));
uint32_t m;
for ( i = 0; i < num_limbs; i++ )
{
m = 0;
uint64_t t = x[i] + y[i] + m;
/* now we need to work out if that overflowed at all */
if ( (t/somebase) >= 1 ) /* expensive division */
{
m = t % somebase; /* get the overflow */
}
}
/* frees somewhere */
That's a rough sketch of what you're looking at for addition via your scheme. So you have to run the conversion between bases. So you're going to need a conversion to your representation for the base, then back when you're done, because this form is just really slow everywhere else. We're not talking about the difference between O(n) and O(n^2) here, but we are talking about an expensive division instruction per limb or an expensive conversion every time you want to divide. See this.
Next up, how do you expand your division for general case division? By that, I mean when you want to divide those two numbers x and y from the above code. You can't, is the answer, without resorting to bignum-based facilities, which are expensive. See Knuth. Taking modulo a number greater than your size doesn't work.
Let me explain. Try 21979182173 mod 1099. Let's assume here for simplicity's sake that the biggest size field we can have is three digits. This is a contrived example, but the biggest field size I know if uses 128 bits using gcc extensions. Anyway, the point is, you:
21 979 182 173
Split your number into limbs. Then you take modulo and sum:
21 1000 1182 1355
It doesn't work. This is where Avi is correct, because this is a form of casting out nines, or an adaption thereof, but it doesn't work here because our fields have overflowed for a start - you're using the modulo to ensure each field stays within its limb/field size.
So what's the solution? Split your number up into a series of appropriately sized bignums? And start using bignum functions to calculate everything you need to? This is going to be much slower than any existing way of manipulating the fields directly.
Now perhaps you're only proposing this case for dividing by a limb, not a bignum, in which case it can work, but hensel division and precomputed inverses etc do to without the conversion requirement. I have no idea if this algorithm would be faster than say hensel division; it would be an interesting comparison; the problem comes with a common representation across the bignum library. The representation chosen in existing bignum libraries is for the reasons I've expanded on - it makes sense at the assembly level, where it was first done.
As a side note; you don't have to use uint32_t to represent your limbs. You use a size ideally the size of the registers of the system (say uint64_t) so that you can take advantage of assembly-optimised versions. So on a 64-bit system adc rax, rbx only sets the overflow (CF) if the result overspills 2^64 bits.
tl;dr version: the problem isn't your algorithm or idea; it's the problem of converting between bases, since the representation you need for your algorithm isn't the most efficient way to do it in add/sub/mul etc. To paraphrase knuth: This shows you the difference between mathematical elegance and computational efficiency.
If you need to frequently divide by the same divisor, using it (or a power of it) as your base makes division as cheap as bit-shifting is for base 2 binary integers.
You could use base 999 if you want; there's nothing special about using a power-of-10 base except that it makes conversion to decimal integer very cheap. (You can work one limb at a time instead of having to do a full division over the whole integer. It's like the difference between converting a binary integer to decimal vs. turning every 4 bits into a hex digit. Binary -> hex can start with the most significant bits, but converting to non-power-of-2 bases has to be LSB-first using division.)
For example, to compute the first 1000 decimal digits of Fibonacci(109) for a code-golf question with a performance requirement, my 105 bytes of x86 machine code answer used the same algorithm as this Python answer: the usual a+=b; b+=a Fibonacci iteration, but divide by (a power of) 10 every time a gets too large.
Fibonacci grows faster than carry propagates, so discarding the low decimal digits occasionally doesn't change the high digits long-term. (You keep a few extra beyond the precision you want).
Dividing by a power of 2 doesn't work, unless you keep track of how many powers of 2 you've discarded, because the eventual binary -> decimal conversion at the end would depend on that.
So for this algorithm, you have to do extended-precision addition, and division by 10 (or whatever power of 10 you want).
I stored base-109 limbs in 32-bit integer elements. Dividing by 109 is trivially cheap: just a pointer increment to skip the low limb. Instead of actually doing a memmove, I just offset the pointer used by the next add iteration.
I think division by a power of 10 other than 10^9 would be somewhat cheap, but would require an actual division on each limb, and propagating the remainder to the next limb.
Extended-precision addition is somewhat more expensive this way than with binary limbs, because I have to generate the carry-out manually with a compare: sum[i] = a[i] + b[i]; carry = sum < a; (unsigned comparison). And also manually wrap to 10^9 based on that compare, with a conditional-move instruction. But I was able to use that carry-out as an input to adc (x86 add-with-carry instruction).
You don't need a full modulo to handle the wrapping on addition, because you know you've wrapped at most once.
This wastes a just over 2 bits of each 32-bit limb: 10^9 instead of 2^32 = 4.29... * 10^9. Storing base-10 digits one per byte would be significantly less space efficient, and very much worse for performance, because an 8-bit binary addition costs the same as a 64-bit binary addition on a modern 64-bit CPU.
I was aiming for code-size: for pure performance I would have used 64-bit limbs holding base-10^19 "digits". (2^64 = 1.84... * 10^19, so this wastes less than 1 bit per 64.) This lets you get twice as much work done with each hardware add instruction. Hmm, actually this might be a problem: the sum of two limbs might wrap the 64-bit integer, so just checking for > 10^19 isn't sufficient anymore. You could work in base 5*10^18, or in base 10^18, or do more complicated carry-out detection that checks for binary carry as well as manual carry.
Storing packed BCD with one digit per 4 bit nibble would be even worse for performance, because there isn't hardware support for blocking carry from one nibble to the next within a byte.
Overall, my version ran about 10x faster than the Python extended-precision version on the same hardware (but it had room for significant optimization for speed, by dividing less often). (70 seconds or 80 seconds vs. 12 minutes)
Still, I think for this particular implementation of that algorithm (where I only needed addition and division, and division happened after every few additions), the choice of base-10^9 limbs was very good. There are much more efficient algorithms for the Nth Fibonacci number that don't need to do 1 billion extended-precision additions.
Floating point type represents a number by storing its significant digits and its exponent separately on separate binary words so it fits in 16, 32, 64 or 128 bits.
Fixed point type stores numbers with 2 words, one representing the integer part, another representing the part past the radix, in negative exponents, 2^-1, 2^-2, 2^-3, etc.
Float are better because they have wider range in an exponent sense, but not if one wants to store number with more precision for a certain range, for example only using integer from -16 to 16, thus using more bits to hold digits past the radix.
In terms of performances, which one has the best performance, or are there cases where some is faster than the other ?
In video game programming, does everybody use floating point because the FPU makes it faster, or because the performance drop is just negligible, or do they make their own fixed type ?
Why isn't there any fixed type in C/C++ ?
That definition covers a very limited subset of fixed point implementations.
It would be more correct to say that in fixed point only the mantissa is stored and the exponent is a constant determined a-priori. There is no requirement for the binary point to fall inside the mantissa, and definitely no requirement that it fall on a word boundary. For example, all of the following are "fixed point":
64 bit mantissa, scaled by 2-32 (this fits the definition listed in the question)
64 bit mantissa, scaled by 2-33 (now the integer and fractional parts cannot be separated by an octet boundary)
32 bit mantissa, scaled by 24 (now there is no fractional part)
32 bit mantissa, scaled by 2-40 (now there is no integer part)
GPUs tend to use fixed point with no integer part (typically 32-bit mantissa scaled by 2-32). Therefore APIs such as OpenGL and Direct3D often use floating-point types which are capable of holding these values. However, manipulating the integer mantissa is often more efficient so these APIs allow specifying coordinates (in texture space, color space, etc) this way as well.
As for your claim that C++ doesn't have a fixed point type, I disagree. All integer types in C++ are fixed point types. The exponent is often assumed to be zero, but this isn't required and I have quite a bit of fixed-point DSP code implemented in C++ this way.
At the code level, fixed-point arithmetic is simply integer arithmetic with an implied denominator.
For many simple arithmetic operations, fixed-point and integer operations are essentially the same. However, there are some operations which the intermediate values must be represented with a higher number of bits and then rounded off. For example, to multiply two 16-bit fixed-point numbers, the result must be temporarily stored in 32-bit before renormalizing (or saturating) back to 16-bit fixed-point.
When the software does not take advantage of vectorization (such as CPU-based SIMD or GPGPU), integer and fixed-point arithmeric is faster than FPU. When vectorization is used, the efficiency of vectorization matters a lot more, such that the performance differences between fixed-point and floating-point is moot.
Some architectures provide hardware implementations for certain math functions, such as sin, cos, atan, sqrt, for floating-point types only. Some architectures do not provide any hardware implementation at all. In both cases, specialized math software libraries may provide those functions by using only integer or fixed-point arithmetic. Often, such libraries will provide multiple level of precisions, for example, answers which are only accurate up to N-bits of precision, which is less than the full precision of the representation. The limited-precision versions may be faster than the highest-precision version.
Fixed point is widely used in DSP and embedded-systems where often the target processor has no FPU, and fixed point can be implemented reasonably efficiently using an integer ALU.
In terms of performance, that is likley to vary depending on the target architecture and application. Obviously if there is no FPU, then fixed point will be considerably faster. When you have an FPU it will depend on the application too. For example performing some functions such as sqrt() or log() will be much faster when directly supported in the instruction set rather thna implemented algorithmically.
There is no built-in fixed point type in C or C++ I imagine because they (or at least C) were envisaged as systems level languages and the need fixed point is somewhat domain specific, and also perhaps because on a general purpose processor there is typically no direct hardware support for fixed point.
In C++ defining a fixed-point data type class with suitable operator overloads and associated math functions can easily overcome this shortcomming. However there are good and bad solutions to this problem. A good example can be found here: http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/207000448. The link to the code in that article is broken, but I tracked it down to ftp://66.77.27.238/sourcecode/ddj/2008/0804.zip
You need to be careful when discussing "precision" in this context.
For the same number of bits in representation the maximum fixed point value has more significant bits than any floating point value (because the floating point format has to give some bits away to the exponent), but the minimum fixed point value has fewer than any non-denormalized floating point value (because the fixed point value wastes most of its mantissa in leading zeros).
Also depending on the way you divide the fixed point number up, the floating point value may be able to represent smaller numbers meaning that it has a more precise representation of "tiny but non-zero".
And so on.
The diferrence between floating point and integer math depends on the CPU you have in mind. On Intel chips the difference is not big in clockticks. Int math is still faster because there are multiple integer ALU's that can work in parallel. Compilers are also smart to use special adress calculation instructions to optimize add/multiply in a single instruction. Conversion counts as an operation too, so just choose your type and stick with it.
In C++ you can build your own type for fixed point math. You just define as struct with one int and override the appropriate overloads, and make them do what they normally do plus a shift to put the comma back to the right position.
You dont use float in games because it is faster or slower you use it because it is easier to implement the algorithms in floating point than in fixed point. You are assuming the reason has to do with computing speed and that is not the reason, it has to do with ease of programming.
For example you may define the width of the screen/viewport as going from 0.0 to 1.0, the height of the screen 0.0 to 1.0. The depth of the word 0.0 to 1.0. and so on. Matrix math, etc makes things real easy to implement. Do all of the math that way up to the point where you need to compute real pixels on a real screen size, say 800x400. Project the ray from the eye to the point on the object in the world and compute where it pierces the screen, using 0 to 1 math, then multiply x by 800, y times 400 and place that pixel.
floating point does not store the exponent and mantissa separately and the mantissa is a goofy number, what is left over after the exponent and sign, like 23 bits, not 16 or 32 or 64 bits.
floating point math at its core uses fixed point logic with extra logic and extra steps required. By definition compared apples to apples fixed point math is cheaper because you dont have to manipulate the data on the way into the alu and dont have to manipulate the data on the way out (normalize). When you add in IEEE and all of its garbage that adds even more logic, more clock cycles, etc. (properly signed infinity, quiet and signaling nans, different results for same operation if there is an exception handler enabled). As someone pointed out in a comment in a real system where you can do fixed and float in parallel, you can take advantage of some or all of the processors and recover some clocks that way. both with float and fixed clock rate can be increased by using vast quantities of chip real estate, fixed will remain cheaper, but float can approach fixed speeds using these kinds of tricks as well as parallel operation.
One issue not covered is the answers is a power consumption. Though it highly depends on specific hardware architecture, usually FPU consumes much more energy than ALU in CPU thus if you target mobile applications where power consumption is important it's worth consider fixed point impelementation of the algorithm.
It depends on what you're working on. If you're using fixed point then you lose precision; you have to select the number of places after the decimal place (which may not always be good enough). In floating point you don't need to worry about this as the precision offered is nearly always good enough for the task in hand - uses a standard form implementation to represent the number.
The pros and cons come down to speed and resources. On modern 32bit and 64bit platforms there is really no need to use fixed point. Most systems come with built in FPUs that are hardwired to be optimised for fixed point operations. Furthermore, most modern CPU intrinsics come with operations such as the SIMD set which help optimise vector based methods via vectorisation and unrolling. So fixed point only comes with a down side.
On embedded systems and small microcontrollers (8bit and 16bit) you may not have an FPU nor extended instruction sets. In which case you may be forced to use fixed point methods or the limited floating point instruction sets that are not very fast. So in these circumstances fixed point will be a better - or even your only - choice.
Is it possible to change the
float *pointer
type that is used in the VS c++ project
to some other type, so that it will still behave as a floating type but with less range?
I know that the floating point values never exceed some fixed value in that project, so I want to optimize the program by memory it uses. It doesn't need 4 bytes for each element of the 'float *pointer', 2 bytes will be enough I think. If I change a float to short and imitate the floating point behaviour, then it will use twice shorter memory. How to do it?
EDIT:
It calculates the probabilities. So there are divisions like
A / B
Where A < B,
And also B (and A) can be from 1 to 10 000.
There is a standard 16-bit floating point format described in IEEE 754-2008 called "binary16". It is specified as a format to store floating point values with reduced precisions. There is almost no compiler support for that yet (I think GCC supports it for certain ARM platforms), but it is quite easy to roll your own routines. This fellow:
http://blog.fpmurphy.com/2008/12/half-precision-floating-point-format_14.html
wrote a bit about it and also presents a routine to convert half-float <-> float.
Also, here seems to be a half-float C++ wrapper class:
half.h:
http://www.koders.com/cpp/fidABD00D95DE84C73BF0218AC621E400E07AA77B53.aspx
half.cpp
http://www.koders.com/cpp/fidF0DD0510FAAED03817A956D251787609BEB5989E.aspx
which supplies "HalfFloat" as a possible drop-in replacement type.
Maybe use fixed-point math? It all depends on value and precision you want to achieve.
http://www.eetimes.com/discussion/other/4024639/Fixed-point-math-in-C
For C there is a lot of code that makes fixed-point easy and I'm pretty sure there are also many C++ classes that make it even easier, but I don't know of any, I'm more into C.
The first, obvious, memory optimization would be to try and get rid of the pointer. If you can store just the float, that may, depending on the larger context, reduce your memory consumption from eight to four bytes already. (On a 64-Bit system, from twelve to four.)
Whether you can get by with a short depends on what your program does with the values. You may be able to use fix point arithmetic using an integral type such as a short, yes but your questions shows way too little context to judge that.
The code you posted and the text in the question do not deal with actual float, but with pointers to float. In all architectures I know of, the size of a pointer is the same regardless of the pointed type, so there would be no improvement in changing that to a short or char pointer.
Now, about the actual pointed elements, what is the range that you expect in your application? What is the precision you need? How many of those elements do you have? What are the memory constraints of your target platform? Unless the range and precision are small and the number of elements huge, just use floats. Also note that if you need floating point operations, storing any other type will require conversions before and after each operation, and you might be impacting performance.
Without greater knowledge of what you are doing, the ranges for short in many architectures are [-32k, 32k), where k stands for 1024. If your data ranges is [-32,32) and you can do with roughly 3 decimal digits you could use fixed point arithmetic with shorts, but there are few such situation.