Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Does C++ have a squared operator?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
21 replies to this topic

#1 LAURENT*   Members   -  Reputation: 242

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:04 PM

I mean something like 2^2 = 4 or 10^2 = 100. I'm programming physics and I kinda need it. If you have code that replicate exponents in math I would like to ask if you could give it to me. Thanks all for any support.



Sponsor:

#2 Washu   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 5423

Like
4Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:30 PM

No, there is no operator for squaring, why would there be when you can simply do it yourself with the multiplication operator. And std::pow for doing arbitrary powers (with some limitations)


Edited by Washu, 30 May 2014 - 03:31 PM.

In time the project grows, the ignorance of its devs it shows, with many a convoluted function, it plunges into deep compunction, the price of failure is high, Washu's mirth is nigh.
ScapeCode - Blog | SlimDX


#3 LAURENT*   Members   -  Reputation: 242

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:38 PM

I guess you're right. I thought of that right I made the thread. I'm still trying out physics and the math isn't coming together like I hoped. I'm thinking about how the compiler will process my code and it look pretty inaccurate to me.



#4 Burnt_Fyr   Members   -  Reputation: 1248

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:46 PM

There is not an operator per se, but there is the pow function , which raises a base to an exponent.


Edited by Burnt_Fyr, 30 May 2014 - 05:26 PM.


#5 LAURENT*   Members   -  Reputation: 242

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 May 2014 - 03:57 PM

You know what I'm so sorry for making this thread. We have a math and physics sub forum and my thread will serve it's purpose better there. Thank for incoming me about POW. I will research it.



#6 LightOfAnima   Members   -  Reputation: 121

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:32 PM

If you so want, you could always try creating a custom class that overloads the ^ operator, using pow internally happy.png


Edited by LightOfAnima, 01 June 2014 - 02:33 PM.


#7 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14258

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:08 PM

Don’t use pow() unless necessary; there is no guarantee the compiler will optimize it away into “X*X” and when it doesn’t you will have a major performance problem.
Just use X*X.


L. Spiro
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#8 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2704

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:04 AM

I know most ppl here dont like macro, and i don't either most of the time, but i think that's a good case for one:

 

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

 

or maybe an inline function if you dont like macros.



#9 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9281

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:36 AM

I know most ppl here dont like macro, and i don't either most of the time, but i think that's a good case for one:

 

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

 

or maybe an inline function if you dont like macros.

 

This macro evaluates its operand twice though which is actually probably your enemy in situations where you would want to use this macro (compilers are not necessarily allowed to reorder operations or even do common subexpression elimination with floating-point math) so I would recommend against it.


The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#10 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6991

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:10 PM

I know most ppl here dont like macro, and i don't either most of the time, but i think that's a good case for one:
 
#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))
 
or maybe an inline function if you dont like macros.

My question is why you think this is good cause for a macro? What benefit does this provide over:
template <typename T>
T pow2(const T& x) {
  return x * x;
}

// Or, if using a more "modern" C++:
template <typename T>
constexpr T pow2(const T& x) {
  return x * x;
}

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#11 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2704

Like
-3Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:02 PM

Well, for one it's extremely simple, compared to your method, and two, it's really fast since it's dosn't involve invoking a function, but it's just a sugestion after all, the op can choose whatever method he prefer, i was just pointing it out.



#12 Washu   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 5423

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 03:33 PM

Well, for one it's extremely simple, compared to your method, and two, it's really fast since it's dosn't involve invoking a function, but it's just a sugestion after all, the op can choose whatever method he prefer, i was just pointing it out.

Except that Cornstalks function will be inlined in any decent compiler. It also avoids a rather nasty trap that your macro has, which can result in hard to diagnose bugs and produce undefined behavior. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the trap is...


Edited by Washu, 02 June 2014 - 03:35 PM.

In time the project grows, the ignorance of its devs it shows, with many a convoluted function, it plunges into deep compunction, the price of failure is high, Washu's mirth is nigh.
ScapeCode - Blog | SlimDX


#13 Chris_F   Members   -  Reputation: 2461

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 04:27 PM

Well, for one it's extremely simple, compared to your method, and two, it's really fast since it's dosn't involve invoking a function, but it's just a sugestion after all, the op can choose whatever method he prefer, i was just pointing it out.

 

There are no disadvantages to the templated constexpr function. In Clang it is inlined at all optimizations levels except for -O0, and if you want to you could use __attribute__((always_inline)) to force it to inline under all circumstances. If you think macros are "fast" and functions are slow, you are using the wrong mindset.



#14 ilreh   Members   -  Reputation: 281

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:04 PM

I would stick with L. Spiro's suggestion. If you're using simple multiplications, a (good) compiler internally tries to solve this with bit shifting which is a very fast way of altering numbers. Adding stuff to the stack for such a simple operation is a waste.



#15 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2704

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:25 PM


Except that Cornstalks function will be inlined in any decent compiler. It also avoids a rather nasty trap that your macro has, which can result in hard to diagnose bugs and produce undefined behavior. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the trap is...

 

What's the trap?

 

I took it from a very good c++ book, not that i really care anyway lol. I don't mean to be rude, but it would be pretty dumb to not call this macro correctly.

 

The parentesis should be able to proctect from the bug you speak of, i believe. If not, then ill just shut my trap :)


Edited by Vortez, 02 June 2014 - 05:31 PM.


#16 ApochPiQ   Moderators   -  Reputation: 16397

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:27 PM

Hint: POW2(IncrementSomeNumberAndReturnIt()) does... what?



#17 Vortez   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2704

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:39 PM


Hint: POW2(IncrementSomeNumberAndReturnIt()) does... what?

 

???

 

I just compiled this and it worked just fine (Answer 9)

#include "stdio.h"

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

int test()
{
	return 3;
}

int main()
{
	int x = POW2(test());	

	printf("%d\n", x);

	return 0;
}


#18 fastcall22   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4456

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:52 PM

Cool story, now try this one:
 
#include <iostream>
 
#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))
 
class Foobar {
public:
    Foobar() : _a(5) { }
     
    int a() {
        return _a++;
    }
      
private:
    int _a;
};
 
int main() {
    using namespace std;
     
    Foobar f;
    int x = POW2(f.a());
     
    cout << x << endl;
}

Edited by fastcall22, 02 June 2014 - 05:55 PM.

c3RhdGljIGNoYXIgeW91cl9tb21bMVVMTCA8PCA2NF07CnNwcmludGYoeW91cl9tb20sICJpcyBmYXQiKTs=

#19 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14258

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:55 PM

I just compiled this and it worked just fine (Answer 9)

#include "stdio.h"

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

int test()
{
	return 3;
}

int main()
{
	int x = POW2(test());	

	printf("%d\n", x);

	return 0;
}

What happens if you try:
 

#include "stdio.h"

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

int main()
{
	int y = 3;
	int x = POW2(++y);	

	printf("%d\n", x);

	return 0;
}




L. Spiro


Edited by L. Spiro, 02 June 2014 - 05:58 PM.

It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#20 Washu   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 5423

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 June 2014 - 06:22 PM

 

I just compiled this and it worked just fine (Answer 9)

#include "stdio.h"

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

int test()
{
	return 3;
}

int main()
{
	int x = POW2(test());	

	printf("%d\n", x);

	return 0;
}

What happens if you try:
 

#include "stdio.h"

#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))

int main()
{
	int y = 3;
	int x = POW2(++y);	

	printf("%d\n", x);

	return 0;
}




L. Spiro

 

Cool story, now try this one:
 

#include <iostream>
 
#define POW2(x) ((x)*(x))
 
class Foobar {
public:
    Foobar() : _a(5) { }
     
    int a() {
        return _a++;
    }
      
private:
    int _a;
};
 
int main() {
    using namespace std;
     
    Foobar f;
    int x = POW2(f.a());
     
    cout << x << endl;
}

Hint: POW2(IncrementSomeNumberAndReturnIt()) does... what?

Three prime examples of the problems of using macros in this manner. Note that Spiro's results in undefined behavior.


In time the project grows, the ignorance of its devs it shows, with many a convoluted function, it plunges into deep compunction, the price of failure is high, Washu's mirth is nigh.
ScapeCode - Blog | SlimDX





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS