Related
According to online documentation, there are differences in between these fixed width integer types. For int*_t we fixed the width to whatever the value of * is. Yet for the other two types, the adjectives fastest and smallest are used in the description to request the fastest or the smallest instances provided by the underlying data model.
What are the objective meanings of "the fastest" or the "smallest"? What is an example in where this would be advantageous or even necessary?
There is no objective meaning to "fastest"; it's basically a judgement call by the compiler writer. Typically, it means expanding smaller values to the native register width of the architecture, but that's not always fastest (e.g. a 1 billion entry array would probably be processed quicker if it were 8 bit values, but uint_fast8_t might be a 32 bit value because the CPU register manipulation goes faster for that size).
"smallest" usually means "the same size as the bits requested", but on weird architectures with limited size values to choose from (e.g. old Crays had everything as a 64 bit type), int_least16_t would work (and seamlessly become a 64 bit value), while the compiler would likely error out on int16_t (because it's impossible to make a true 16 bit integer value there).
Point is, if you're relying on overflow behaviors, you need to use an exact fixed width type. Otherwise, you should probably default to least types for maximum portability, switching to fast types in hot code paths, but profiling would be needed to determine if it really makes any difference.
If one has to calculate a fraction of a given int value, say:
int j = 78;
int i = 5* j / 4;
Is this faster than doing:
int i = 1.25*j; // ?
If it is, is there a conversion factor one could use to decide which to use, as in how many int divisions can be done in the same time a one float multiplication?
Edit: I think the comments make it clear that the floating point math will be slower, but the question is, by how much? If I need to replace each float multiplication by N int divisions, for what N will this not be worth it anymore?
You've said all the values are dynamic, which makes a difference. For the specific values 5 * j / 4, the integer operations are going to be blindingly fast, because pretty much the worst case is that the compiler optimises them to two shifts and one addition, plus some messing around to cope with the possibility that j is negative. If the CPU can do better (single-cycle integer multiplication or whatever) then the compiler typically knows about it. The limits of compilers' abilities to optimize this kind of thing basically come when you're compiling for a wide family of CPUs (generating lowest-common-denominator ARM code, for example), where the compiler doesn't really know much about the hardware and therefore can't always make good choices.
I suppose that if a and b are fixed for a while (but not known at compile time), then it's possible that computing k = double(a) / b once and then int(k * x) for many different values of x, might be faster than computing a * x / b for many different values of x. I wouldn't count on it.
If all the values vary each time, then it seems unlikely that the floating-point division to compute the 1.25, followed by floating-point multiplication, is going to be any faster than the integer multiplication followed by integer division. But you never know, test it.
It's not really possible to give simple relative timings for this on modern processors, it really depends a lot on the surrounding code. The main costs in your code often aren't the "actual" ops: it's "invisible" stuff like instruction pipelines stalling on dependencies, or spilling registers to stack, or function call overhead. Whether or not the function that does this work can be inlined might easily make more difference than how the function actually does it. As far as definitive statements of performance are concerned you can basically test real code or shut up. But the chances are that if your values start as integers, doing integer ops on them is going to be faster than converting to double and doing a similar number of double ops.
It is impossible to answer this question out of context. Additionally 5*j/4 does not generally produce the same result as (int) (1.25*j), due to properties of integer and floating-point arithmetic, including rounding and overflow.
If your program is doing mostly integer operations, then the conversion of j to floating point, multiplication by 1.25, and conversion back to integer might be free because it uses floating-point units that are not otherwise engaged.
Alternatively, on some processors, the operating system might mark the floating-point state to be invalid, so that the first time a process uses it, there is an exception, the operating system saves the floating-point registers (which contain values from another process), restores or initializes the registers for your process, and returns from the exception. This would take a great deal of time, relative to normal instruction execution.
The answer also depends on characteristics of the specific processor model the program is executing on, as well as the operating system, how the compiler translates the source into assembly, and possibly even what other processes on the system are doing.
Also, the performance difference between 5*j/4 and (int) (1.25*j) is most often too small to be noticeable in a program unless it or operations like it are repeated a great many times. (And, if they are, there may be huge benefits to vectorizing the code, that is, using the Single Instruction Multiple Data [SIMD] features of many modern processors to perform several operations at once.)
In your case, 5*j/4 would be much faster than 1.25*j because division by powers of 2 can be easily manipulated by a right shift, and 5*j can be done by a single instruction on many architectures such as LEA on x86, or ADD with shift on ARM. Most others would require at most 2 instructions like j + (j >> 2) but that way it's still probably faster than a floating-point multiplication. Moreover by doing int i = 1.25*j you need 2 conversions from int to double and back, and 2 cross-domain data movements which is generally very costly
In other cases when the fraction is not representable in binary floating-point (like 3*j/10) then using int multiply/divide would be more correct (because 0.3 isn't exactly 0.3 in floating-point), and most probably faster (because the compiler can optimize out division by a constant by converting it to a multiplication)
In cases that i and j are of a floating-point type, multiplying by another floating-point value might be faster. Because moving values between float and int domains takes time and conversion between int and float also takes time as I said above
An important difference is that 5*j/4 will overflow if j is too large, but 1.25*j doesn't
That said, there's no general answer for the questions "which is faster" and "how much faster", as it depends on a specific architecture and in a specific context. You must measure on your system and decide. But if an expression is done repeatedly to a lot of values then it's time to move to SIMD
See also
Why is int * float faster than int / int?
Should I use multiplication or division?
Floating point division vs floating point multiplication
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
The importance of using a 16bit integer
If today's processors perform (under standard conditions) 32-bit operations -- then is using a "short int" reasonable? Because in order to perform an operation on that data, it will convert it to a 32-bit (from 16-bit) integer, perform the operations, and then go back to 16-bit -- I think. So what is the point?
In essence my questions are as follows:
What (if any) performance gain/hindrance does using a smaller ranged integer bring? Like, if instead of using a standard 32-bit integer for storage, I use a 16-bit short integer.
"and then go back to 16-bit" -- Am I correct here? See above.
Are all integer data stored as 32-bit integer space on CPU/RAM?
The answer to your first question should also clarify the last one: if you need to store large numbers of 16-bit ints, you save half the amount of memory required for 32-bit ints, with whatever "fringe benefits" that may come along with it, such as using the cache more efficiently.
Most CPUs these days have separate instructions for 16-bit vs. 32-bit operations, along with instructions to read and write 16-bit values from and to memory. Internally, the ALU may be performing a 32-bit operation, but the result for the upper half does not make it back into the registers.
The processor doesn't need to "expand" a value to work with it. It just pads the unused spaces with zeroes and ignores them when performing calculations. So, actually, it is faster to operate on a short int than a long int, although with today's fast CPUs it is very hard to notice even a bit of difference (pun intended).
The machine doesn't really convert. When changing the size of a value, it either pads zeroes to the left or totally ignores extra bits to the left that won't fit in the target memory region.
No, and this is usually the reason people use short int values for purposes where the range of a long int just isn't needed. The memory allocated is different for each length of int, like a short int takes up fewer bits of memory than a long int. One of the steps in optimization is to change long int values to short int values when the range does not exceed that of a short int, meaning that the value would never use the extra bits allocated with a long int. The memory saved from such an optimization can actually be quite significant when dealing with a lot of elements in arrays or a lot of objects of the same struct or class.
Different int sizes are stored with different amounts of bits in both the RAM and the internal processor cache. This is also true of float, double, and long double, although long double is mainly for 64-bit systems and most compilers just ignore the long if running on 32-bit machines because a 64-bit value in a 32-bit accumulator & ALU will be 'mowed down' during any calculation and would likely never receive anything but zeros for the first 32 bits.
What (if any) performance gain/hindrance does using a smaller ranged integer bring? Like, if instead of using a standard 32-bit integer for storage, I use a 16-bit short integer.
It uses less memory. Under normal circumstances, it will use half as much.
"and then go back to 16-bit" -- Am I correct here? See above.
It only converts between 16 an 32-bit if that is needed by your code, which you failed to show.
Are all integer data stored as 32-bit integer space on CPU/RAM?
No. 32-bit processors can address and work directly with values up to 32 bits. Many operations can be done on 8 and 16-bit values as well.
No is not reasonable unless you have some sort of (very tight) memory constraints you should use int
You dont gain performance, just memory. In fact you lose performance because of what you just said, since registers need to strip out the upper bits.
See above
Yes depends on the CPU, No it's 16 bit on the RAM
What (if any) performance gain/hindrance does using a smaller ranged
integer bring? Like, if instead of using a standard 32-bit integer for
storage, I use a 16-bit short integer.
Performance comes from cache locality. The more data you fit in cache, the faster your program runs. This is more relevant if you have lots of short values.
"and then go back to 16-bit" -- Am I correct here?
I'm not so sure about this. I would have expected that the CPU can optimize multiple operations in parallel, and you get bigger throughput if you can pack data into 16 bits. It may also be that this can happen at the same time as other 32-bit operations. I am speculating here, so I'll stop!
Are all integer data stored as 32-bit integer space on CPU/RAM?
No. The various integer datatypes have a specific size. However, you may encounter padding inside structs when you use char and short in particular.
Speed efficiency is not the only concern. Obviously you have storage benefits, as well as intrinsic behaviour (for example, I have written performance-specific code that exploits the integer overflow of a unsigned short just so that I don't have to do any modulo). You also have the benefit of using specific data sizes for reading and writing binary data. There's probably more that I haven't mentioned, but you get the point =)
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.
Why is it that for any numeric input we prefer an int rather than short, even if the input is of very few integers.
The size of short is 2 bytes on my x86 and 4 bytes for int, shouldn't it be better and faster to allocate than an int?
Or I am wrong in saying that short is not used?
CPUs are usually fastest when dealing with their "native" integer size. So even though a short may be smaller than an int, the int is probably closer to the native size of a register in your CPU, and therefore is likely to be the most efficient of the two.
In a typical 32-bit CPU architecture, to load a 32-bit value requires one bus cycle to load all the bits. Loading a 16-bit value requires one bus cycle to load the bits, plus throwing half of them away (this operation may still happen within one bus cycle).
A 16-bit short makes sense if you're keeping so many in memory (in a large array, for example) that the 50% reduction in size adds up to an appreciable reduction in memory overhead. They are not faster than 32-bit integers on modern processors, as Greg correctly pointed out.
In embedded systems, the short and unsigned short data types are used for accessing items that require less bits than the native integer.
For example, if my USB controller has 16 bit registers, and my processor has a native 32 bit integer, I would use an unsigned short to access the registers (provided that the unsigned short data type is 16-bits).
Most of the advice from experienced users (see news:comp.lang.c++.moderated) is to use the native integer size unless a smaller data type must be used. The problem with using short to save memory is that the values may exceed the limits of short. Also, this may be a performance hit on some 32-bit processors, as they have to fetch 32 bits near the 16-bit variable and eliminate the unwanted 16 bits.
My advice is to work on the quality of your programs first, and only worry about optimization if it is warranted and you have extra time in your schedule.
Using type short does not guarantee that the actual values will be smaller than those of type int. It allows for them to be smaller, and ensures that they are no bigger. Note too that short must be larger than or equal in size to type char.
The original question above contains actual sizes for the processor in question, but when porting code to a new environment, one can only rely on weak relative assumptions without verifying the implementation-defined sizes.
The C header <stdint.h> -- or, from C++, <cstdint> -- defines types of specified size, such as uint8_t for an unsigned integral type exactly eight bits wide. Use these types when attempting to conform to an externally-specified format such as a network protocol or binary file format.
The short type is very useful if you have a big array full of them and int is just way too big.
Given that the array is big enough, the memory saving will be important (instead of just using an array of ints).
Unicode arrays are also encoded in shorts (although other encode schemes exist).
On embedded devices, space still matters and short might be very beneficial.
Last but not least, some transmission protocols insists in using shorts, so you still need them there.
Maybe we should consider it in different situations. For example, x86 or x64 should consider more suitable type, not just choose int. In some cases, int have faster speed than short. The first floor have answered this question