• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Does C++ have a squared operator?

This topic is 1326 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Burnt_Fyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by LightOfAnima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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;
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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;
}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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;
}

[spoiler]http://codepad.org/tolVAt92[/spoiler]


L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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;
}

[spoiler]http://codepad.org/tolVAt92[/spoiler]


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement