This one has no branches, and doesn't suffer from overflow or underflow:
return (a > b) - (a < b);
With gcc -O2 -S, this compiles down to the following six instructions:
xorl %eax, %eax
cmpl %esi, %edi
setl %dl
setg %al
movzbl %dl, %edx
subl %edx, %eax
Here's some code to benchmark various compare implementations:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define COUNT 1024
#define LOOPS 500
#define COMPARE compare2
#define USE_RAND 1
int arr[COUNT];
int compare1 (int a, int b)
{
if (a < b) return -1;
if (a > b) return 1;
return 0;
}
int compare2 (int a, int b)
{
return (a > b) - (a < b);
}
int compare3 (int a, int b)
{
return (a < b) ? -1 : (a > b);
}
int compare4 (int a, int b)
{
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"sub %1, %0 \n\t"
"jno 1f \n\t"
"cmc \n\t"
"rcr %0 \n\t"
"1: "
: "+r"(a)
: "r"(b)
: "cc");
return a;
}
int main ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
#if USE_RAND
arr[i] = rand();
#else
for (int b = 0; b < sizeof(arr[i]); b++) {
*((unsigned char *)&arr[i] + b) = rand();
}
#endif
}
int sum = 0;
for (int l = 0; l < LOOPS; l++) {
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < COUNT; j++) {
sum += COMPARE(arr[i], arr[j]);
}
}
}
printf("%d=0\n", sum);
return 0;
}
The results on my 64-bit system, compiled with gcc -std=c99 -O2, for positive integers (USE_RAND=1):
compare1: 0m1.118s
compare2: 0m0.756s
compare3: 0m1.101s
compare4: 0m0.561s
Out of C-only solutions, the one I suggested was the fastest. user315052's solution was slower despite compiling to only 5 instructions. The slowdown is likely because, despite having one less instruction, there is a conditional instruction (cmovge).
Overall, FredOverflow's 4-instruction assembly implementation was the fastest when used with positive integers. However, this code only benchmarked the integer range RAND_MAX, so the 4-instuction test is biased, because it handles overflows separately, and these don't occur in the test; the speed may be due to successful branch prediction.
With a full range of integers (USE_RAND=0), the 4-instruction solution is in fact very slow (others are the same):
compare4: 0m1.897s
This one has no branches, and doesn't suffer from overflow or underflow:
return (a > b) - (a < b);
With gcc -O2 -S, this compiles down to the following six instructions:
xorl %eax, %eax
cmpl %esi, %edi
setl %dl
setg %al
movzbl %dl, %edx
subl %edx, %eax
Here's some code to benchmark various compare implementations:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define COUNT 1024
#define LOOPS 500
#define COMPARE compare2
#define USE_RAND 1
int arr[COUNT];
int compare1 (int a, int b)
{
if (a < b) return -1;
if (a > b) return 1;
return 0;
}
int compare2 (int a, int b)
{
return (a > b) - (a < b);
}
int compare3 (int a, int b)
{
return (a < b) ? -1 : (a > b);
}
int compare4 (int a, int b)
{
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"sub %1, %0 \n\t"
"jno 1f \n\t"
"cmc \n\t"
"rcr %0 \n\t"
"1: "
: "+r"(a)
: "r"(b)
: "cc");
return a;
}
int main ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
#if USE_RAND
arr[i] = rand();
#else
for (int b = 0; b < sizeof(arr[i]); b++) {
*((unsigned char *)&arr[i] + b) = rand();
}
#endif
}
int sum = 0;
for (int l = 0; l < LOOPS; l++) {
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < COUNT; j++) {
sum += COMPARE(arr[i], arr[j]);
}
}
}
printf("%d=0\n", sum);
return 0;
}
The results on my 64-bit system, compiled with gcc -std=c99 -O2, for positive integers (USE_RAND=1):
compare1: 0m1.118s
compare2: 0m0.756s
compare3: 0m1.101s
compare4: 0m0.561s
Out of C-only solutions, the one I suggested was the fastest. user315052's solution was slower despite compiling to only 5 instructions. The slowdown is likely because, despite having one less instruction, there is a conditional instruction (cmovge).
Overall, FredOverflow's 4-instruction assembly implementation was the fastest when used with positive integers. However, this code only benchmarked the integer range RAND_MAX, so the 4-instuction test is biased, because it handles overflows separately, and these don't occur in the test; the speed may be due to successful branch prediction.
With a full range of integers (USE_RAND=0), the 4-instruction solution is in fact very slow (others are the same):
compare4: 0m1.897s
The following has always proven to be fairly efficient for me:
return (a < b) ? -1 : (a > b);
With gcc -O2 -S, this compiles down to the following five instructions:
xorl %edx, %edx
cmpl %esi, %edi
movl $-1, %eax
setg %dl
cmovge %edx, %eax
As a follow-up to Ambroz Bizjak's excellent companion answer, I was not convinced that his program tested the same assembly code what was posted above. And, when I was studying the compiler output more closely, I noticed that the compiler was not generating the same instructions as was posted in either of our answers. So, I took his test program, hand modified the assembly output to match what we posted, and compared the resulting times. It seems the two versions compare roughly identically.
./opt_cmp_branchless: 0m1.070s
./opt_cmp_branch: 0m1.037s
I am posting the assembly of each program in full so that others may attempt the same experiment, and confirm or contradict my observation.
The following is the version with the cmovge instruction ((a < b) ? -1 : (a > b)):
.file "cmp.c"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "%d=0\n"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB20:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
pushq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 24
.cfi_offset 3, -24
movl $arr.2789, %ebx
subq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
.L9:
leaq 4(%rbx), %rbp
.L10:
call rand
movb %al, (%rbx)
addq $1, %rbx
cmpq %rbx, %rbp
jne .L10
cmpq $arr.2789+4096, %rbp
jne .L9
xorl %r8d, %r8d
xorl %esi, %esi
orl $-1, %edi
.L12:
xorl %ebp, %ebp
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L18:
movl arr.2789(%rbp), %ecx
xorl %eax, %eax
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L15:
movl arr.2789(%rax), %edx
xorl %ebx, %ebx
cmpl %ecx, %edx
movl $-1, %edx
setg %bl
cmovge %ebx, %edx
addq $4, %rax
addl %edx, %esi
cmpq $4096, %rax
jne .L15
addq $4, %rbp
cmpq $4096, %rbp
jne .L18
addl $1, %r8d
cmpl $500, %r8d
jne .L12
movl $.LC0, %edi
xorl %eax, %eax
call printf
addq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 24
xorl %eax, %eax
popq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE20:
.size main, .-main
.local arr.2789
.comm arr.2789,4096,32
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
The version below uses the branchless method ((a > b) - (a < b)):
.file "cmp.c"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "%d=0\n"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB20:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
pushq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 24
.cfi_offset 3, -24
movl $arr.2789, %ebx
subq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 32
.L9:
leaq 4(%rbx), %rbp
.L10:
call rand
movb %al, (%rbx)
addq $1, %rbx
cmpq %rbx, %rbp
jne .L10
cmpq $arr.2789+4096, %rbp
jne .L9
xorl %r8d, %r8d
xorl %esi, %esi
.L19:
movl %ebp, %ebx
xorl %edi, %edi
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L24:
movl %ebp, %ecx
xorl %eax, %eax
jmp .L22
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L20:
movl arr.2789(%rax), %ecx
.L22:
xorl %edx, %edx
cmpl %ebx, %ecx
setg %cl
setl %dl
movzbl %cl, %ecx
subl %ecx, %edx
addl %edx, %esi
addq $4, %rax
cmpq $4096, %rax
jne .L20
addq $4, %rdi
cmpq $4096, %rdi
je .L21
movl arr.2789(%rdi), %ebx
jmp .L24
.L21:
addl $1, %r8d
cmpl $500, %r8d
jne .L19
movl $.LC0, %edi
xorl %eax, %eax
call printf
addq $8, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 24
xorl %eax, %eax
popq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE20:
.size main, .-main
.local arr.2789
.comm arr.2789,4096,32
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
Making an assumption classschedule[i].classNumber is an int
int sname; int i;
printf("Please enter the class numbers:\n");
scanf("%d", &sname); /* Should check the return value here! */
for (i = 0; i<tail; i++) { /*Always put on the braces - otherwise it is embarrassing when your trousers fall down*/
if (sname == classschedule[i].classNumber)
{
return i;
}
}
For just a simple integer, you can use the standard comparison operators (<, <=, >, >=, ==). For an array of integers, you can define your own comparison function:
int CompareIntegerArrays(int* a0, int len0, int* a1, int len1)
{
int minlen = min(len0, len1);
int i;
for (i = 0; i < minlen; ++i) {
int diff = a0[i] - a1[i];
if (diff != 0) {
return diff;
}
}
return len0 - len1;
}
Videos
In the following function:
int cmp_int(const void *va, const void *vb)
{
int a = *(int*)va;
int b = *(int*)vb;
return a < b ? -1 : a > b ? +1 : 0;
}
I'm a bit confused as to what int a = *(int*)va actually is doing. I'm assuming that this is treating va as an integer when copying to a, given it's initialized as void type?
Maybe I'm missing something in the rules, but...
81 bytes
main(a,b){scanf("%d%d",&a,&b);long long l=a;l-=b;printf("%lld%d",--l>>63,l>>63);}
Ouputs 00 if a > b, -10 if a == b, and -1-1 if a < b.
90 bytes
If we can use stdio, why not use its formatting capabilities to perform comparison?
main(a,b){scanf("%d%d",&a,&b);snprintf(&a,2,"%d",b-a);a&=63;putchar(51-!(a-45)-!!(a-48));}
Assumes ASCII-compatible encoding and little-endianness.
72 bytes
Quotients are rounded toward zero but right-shifts are (in practice) "rounded down". That's a dead giveaway.
main(a,b){scanf("%d%d",&a,&b);a-=b;putchar(a?a|=1,a/2-(a>>1)?60:62:61);}
65 79 bytes
Another distinguishing property of negative numbers is that they produce negative modulo.
This one doesn't depend on integer representation at all; it even works on my 8-bit excess-127 toaster!
Oh, and since we can use conio, why not save two bytes with putch? Now, if I could only find my copy of TurboC...
main(a,b){scanf("%d%d",&a,&b);long long d=a;d-=b;putch(d?d|=1,d%2-1?60:62:61);}
EDIT: Handle large differences assuming long long is wider than int.
In C,
What is the easiest way to see which integer is the biggest one? So if I have 4 integers,
int i[4];
i[0] = 4;
i[1] = 6;
i[2] = 0;
i[3] = 8;
i[3] is the greatest one, but what is the easiest way of finding that out. You can make if statements checking if each variable is bigger than the other but that would be a lot of if statements and would be hard to read. Is there an easier way? Or a function I could use?
Thank you.
I only found out about the .compare method when I let Intellij overwrite the equals method.
Can these be used interchageably?
I should not simply use == when comparing strings
Why not? (Assuming another culture or some other non-default comparison mechanism is appropriate for you.) It's a perfectly sensible operator for strings, just like it is for ints. It tells you whether the two values are equal, just as one would expect.
It's not the only way to compare two string or ints for equality, but it's certainly valid one.
As int is a value type, it cannot be null.
Hence you can use == just fine.
However, if you have an MyInteger class (a wrapper class for value type int, that inherits from an Object type) that can be a null object, in which it does not contain an int within it. See this MSDN regarding Boxing and Unboxing, where an int is boxed and assigned to an object.
Back to the question, you can use == just fine for int types, here are a few other alternatives:
a. CompareTo method
e.g: 5.CompareTo(6) //returns -1
This will return -1 if first int is smaller, 0 is they are equal, and 1 if first int is larger. This method is similar to < > == operators.
b. Int32.Equals method
This is identical to == as it returns a true/false boolean. See an example from MSDN here. However there is a difference of this method compared to == for a boxed int, as Jon Skeet detailed in this SO question, this is related to the boxing and unboxing I mentioned