10^9 is way smaller than 2^32

So in your case, no need to use unsigned long long (it fits, yes), which is overkill and can lead to slower operation.

Use the proper type, normalized in stdint.h include: uint32_t or uint_least32_t (uint32_t vs uint_fast32_t vs uint_least32_t)

long is also guaranteed to be at least 32 bits, so it's a good & simple choice as well.

Something like this:

int quick_pow10(int n)
{
    static int pow10[10] = {
        1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 
        100000, 1000000, 10000000, 100000000, 1000000000
    };

    return pow10[n]; 
}

Obviously, can do the same thing for long long.

This should be several times faster than any competing method. However, it is quite limited if you have lots of bases (although the number of values goes down quite dramatically with larger bases), so if there isn't a huge number of combinations, it's still doable.

As a comparison:

#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cmath>

static int quick_pow10(int n)
{
    static int pow10[10] = {
        1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 
        100000, 1000000, 10000000, 100000000, 1000000000
    };

    return pow10[n]; 
}

static int integer_pow(int x, int n)
{
    int r = 1;
    while (n--)
       r *= x;

    return r; 
}

static int opt_int_pow(int n)
{
    int r = 1;
    const int x = 10;
    while (n)
    {
        if (n & 1) 
        {
           r *= x;
           n--;
        }
        else
        {
            r *= x * x;
            n -= 2;
        }
    }

    return r; 
}


int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
    long long sum = 0;
    int n = strtol(argv[1], 0, 0);
    const long outer_loops = 1000000000;

    if (argv[2][0] == 'a')
    {
        for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
        {
            for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
            {
                sum += quick_pow10(n);
            }
        }
    }
    if (argv[2][0] == 'b')
    {
        for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
        {
            for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
            {
                sum += integer_pow(10,n);
            }
        }
    }

    if (argv[2][0] == 'c')
    {
        for(long i = 0; i < outer_loops / n; i++)
        {
            for(int j = 1; j < n+1; j++)
            {
                sum += opt_int_pow(n);
            }
        }
    }

    std::cout << "sum=" << sum << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Compiled with g++ 4.6.3, using -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x, gives the following results:

$ g++ -Wall -O2 -std=c++0x pow.cpp
$ time ./a.out 8 a
sum=100000000000000000

real    0m0.124s
user    0m0.119s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out 8 b
sum=100000000000000000

real    0m7.502s
user    0m7.482s
sys 0m0.003s

$ time ./a.out 8 c
sum=100000000000000000

real    0m6.098s
user    0m6.077s
sys 0m0.002s

(I did have an option for using pow as well, but it took 1m22.56s when I first tried it, so I removed it when I decided to have optimised loop variant)

You need to use double, not long (since 10⁸⁰ won't fit in a 64 bits long which can express numbers below 9223372036854775807). But read the floating point guide, since it is a very difficult subject (notice that floating point numbers are not the same as mathematical real numbers).

You might try:

#include <stdio.h>   
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>     

int main(void) {
  int n = 0;
  if (scanf("%d",&n)<1) { perror("scanf"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
  if (n < -256 || n > 256) 
    { fprintf(stderr, "wrong exponent %d\n", n);
      exit(EXIT_FAILURE); };
  double x = pow(10.0,(double)n);
  printf("ten power %d is %g\n", n, x);
  return 0;
}

(I removed the call to solve which you did not define; I tested the success of scanf and the range of n)

For much larger exponents, you'll need bignums perhaps using GMPlib.

Don't forget to enable all warnings & debug info when compiling. If you compiled your original code with gcc -Wall -Wextra -g you'll be warned many times (nearly one warning per line!).

The minimum ranges you can rely on are:

• short int and int: -32,767 to 32,767
• unsigned short int and unsigned int: 0 to 65,535
• long int: -2,147,483,647 to 2,147,483,647
• unsigned long int: 0 to 4,294,967,295

This means that no, long int cannot be relied upon to store any 10-digit number. However, a larger type, long long int, was introduced to C in C99 and C++ in C++11 (this type is also often supported as an extension by compilers built for older standards that did not include it). The minimum range for this type, if your compiler supports it, is:

• long long int: -9,223,372,036,854,775,807 to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
• unsigned long long int: 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615

So that type will be big enough (again, if you have it available).

A note for those who believe I've made a mistake with these lower bounds: the C requirements for the ranges are written to allow for ones' complement or sign-magnitude integer representations, where the lowest representable value and the highest representable value differ only in sign. It is also allowed to have a two's complement representation where the value with sign bit 1 and all value bits 0 is a trap representation rather than a legal value. In other words, int is not required to be able to represent the value -32,768.