'Int' is faster than 'Char'

K

karthikbalaguru

Hi,

How is 'Int' Faster than 'Char' ?
I think , 'Char' is small and so it should be easily & efficiently .

Can someone here provide some info regarding this.

Thanks and Regards,
Karthik Balaguru
 
K

karthikbalaguru

*Please don't quote signatures*


In which context? It is significant.
Click to expand...

Ok, i will tell u the story.... :(
I came accross a document that states that 'int' is faster than
'char'.
So, I would like to know the following because this is the first time,
i am hearing such a stuff -
1) Is 'int' really faster than 'char' ?
2) If so, then how is it ?

I have provided Info found in that doc.
Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
any other implementations.

Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Is it so ? How ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru
 
K

Keith Thompson

karthikbalaguru said:
How is 'Int' Faster than 'Char' ?
I think , 'Char' is small and so it should be easily & efficiently .

Can someone here provide some info regarding this.
Click to expand...

C is a case-sensitive language. 'Int' and 'int' are two different
identifiers (actually an identifier and a keyword), as are 'Char' and
'char'. So your question is:

How is 'int' faster than 'char'.

int and char are types. Types do not have speed in any meaningful
sense. Specific operations on types might be faster or slower than
specific operations on other types.

So your real question is something like:

How are operations on operands of type 'int' faster than the same
operations on operands of type 'char'.

As far as the C language is concerned, the question is *still*
meaningless. The language doesn't say anything about that the
relative speeds of different operations, and such things can and often
do vary from one implementation to another.

On *some* systems, operations on 'int' can indeed be faster than
operations on 'char', because the hardware is designed to operate
efficiently on 'word'-sized chunks of data. For example, suppose int
is 32 bits, and char is 8 bits (other sizes are possible). The CPU
might have instructions to load, store, and operate on 32-bit chunks
of data. It might not have such instructions for 8-bit data; instead,
to load an 8-bit value, it might have to load a 32-bit value and
extract the desired 8 bits. To store an 8-bit value, it might have to
load 32 bits, use bitwise operations to set the desired 8-bit subset,
and then store 32 bits.

On other systems, operations on 8-bit values might be faster than
operations on 32-bit values. Or they might be exactly the same speed.

The standard (C99 6.2.5p5) says:

A "plain" int object has the natural size suggested by the
architecture of the execution environment ...

This suggests, but does not require, that an int is typically one
"word", and that operations on it are likely to be efficient.

If you want to have a single object, or a few individual objects,
intended to hold only small values, it's likely (but by no means
guaranteed) that using 'int' will give you the fastest code. Using
'char' instead might increase the size of your code more than it
reduces the size of your objects.

On the other hand, if you want large arrays of such objects, the space
saved by using 'char' could be more important.
 
I

Ian Collins

karthikbalaguru said:
Ok, i will tell u the story.... :(
I came accross a document that states that 'int' is faster than
'char'.
So, I would like to know the following because this is the first time,
i am hearing such a stuff -
1) Is 'int' really faster than 'char' ?
2) If so, then how is it ?
Click to expand...
The question is still meaningless. There is nothing in the standard
concerning the speed (how would you define speed?) of a type.

On some systems, operations on a char might be faster than on an int
(say an 8 bit micro with a 16 bit int) on others, they might be
significantly slower if the hardware can't address (or has to go through
hoops to address, or has to mask bits or...) individual bytes of memory.
 
A

Army1987

I came accross a document that states that 'int' is faster than
'char'.
Click to expand...
Is it the first answer in www.c-faq.com?
So, I would like to know the following because this is the first time,
i am hearing such a stuff -
1) Is 'int' really faster than 'char' ?
2) If so, then how is it ?

I have provided Info found in that doc.
Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
any other implementations.

Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Is it so ? How ?
Click to expand...
Operators such as &&, ||, <, == etc. all return an int.
Functions such as isspace(), isupper() etc. all return an int.
So in the second case there will be lots of conversions from int
to char which are likely to slow down the code. Also, on some
machines fetching a char is slower than fetching an int.
 
A

Army1987

Hi,

How is 'Int' Faster than 'Char' ?
I think , 'Char' is small and so it should be easily & efficiently .

Can someone here provide some info regarding this.

Thanks and Regards,
Karthik Balaguru
Click to expand...
If you have C99, use int_fast8_t in <stdint.h> (or _Bool if it is
what you need) if this bothers you.
 
S

SM Ryan

# Hi,
#
# How is 'Int' Faster than 'Char' ?
# I think , 'Char' is small and so it should be easily & efficiently .

Depends on the hardware. Memory might be optimised for word
access, with bytes requiring extra hardware or software fiddling.
CPU operations might only accept int sized values, with extra
steps of widenning and thinning chars. Or the hardware could be
optimised for char over int. It really depends on the machine
and the intended customer.
 
S

SM Ryan

# I have provided Info found in that doc.
# Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
# any other implementations.
#
# Method 1)
# typedef int BOOLEAN
# #define TRUE(1)
# #define FALSE(0)

If <stdbool.h> is available on your machine, the best guess,
without benchmarking, is to use that and hope your compiler
vendor has done the hard work of finding what is really superior
performance.
 
C

Chris Dollin

karthikbalaguru said:
I have provided Info found in that doc.
Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
any other implementations.

Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)
Click to expand...

Whatever the relative speeds might have been, both of these
methods are syntactically incorrect -- for two different
reasons.
So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Is it so ? How ?
Click to expand...

It depends on how they are used. (Sometimes, when `char` is rather
smaller than `int`, that allows code to run faster, or even run
rather than not, because big boolean arrays won't be as big.)

In any case, such speed variation is a property of /a particular
implementation/, used in /a particular way/, so you can't appeal
to the standard for an answer, and if you want to appeal to
other programmers, you'd better be specific about how you're
using the Methods and what platform you're using and what you're
performance goals are.
 
K

Keith Thompson

karthikbalaguru said:
Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)
Click to expand...

These definitions are syntax errors. You need a ';' on the typedefs,
and a space after 'TRUE' and 'FALSE', and the parentheses are
unnecessary.

Personally, my favorite way to define a boolean type in C (if _Bool
and <stdbool.h aren't available) is:

typedef enum { false, true } bool;

If you choose to define 'TRUE' and 'FALSE', it's important to remember
*not* to compare a value for equality with TRUE. For example:

BOOLEAN b = some_condition;
if (b == TRUE) /* ... */ WRONG!

Any non-zero value is considered true; the comparison will fail if b
has any value other than 0 or 1. Instead, since b is already a boolean,
just test it directly:

if (b) /* ... */ OK

This is *much* more important than any concerns about performance.

See section 9 of the comp.lang.c FAQ said:
So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Click to expand...

In addition to fact that the relative performance is system-specific,
it's entirely possible that some operations will be faster for char
than for int, and other operations will be faster for int than for
char.

It's not very likely that the difference either way is going to be
significant. Write clear and correct code. If it works, and it's
fast enough, you're done. If it works, but it's not fast enough, you
can start looking for ways to speed it up. It's easier to make good
code fast than to make fast code good.
 
M

Malcolm McLean

karthikbalaguru said:
Ok, i will tell u the story.... :(
I came accross a document that states that 'int' is faster than
'char'.
So, I would like to know the following because this is the first time,
i am hearing such a stuff -
1) Is 'int' really faster than 'char' ?
2) If so, then how is it ?

I have provided Info found in that doc.
Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
any other implementations.

Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Is it so ? How ?
Click to expand...
int is meant to be the "natural integer size" for the machine.
So you should assume that if you need to hold a boolean, int will be the
most efficient representation, speed wise.
However ints also have to be at least 16 bits. The C standard cannot
legislate that hardware will access 16-bit or 32-bit quantities faster than
chars (almost always 8 bits). So the assumption will not always hold true.
Additionally there are issues such as cache usage, register allocation,
pipeling and similar which make it very difficult to predict how a
particular piece of code will behave.
More often than not, however, char will be slower, maybe because the
unaligned read is, under the hood, an aligned 32-bit read followed by some
buit shifting, or maybe because there are no 8-bit registers and so char
variables have to take modulus 256 operations to force them into range.
 
R

Ravishankar S

karthikbalaguru said:
Ok, i will tell u the story.... :(
I came accross a document that states that 'int' is faster than
'char'.
So, I would like to know the following because this is the first time,
i am hearing such a stuff -
1) Is 'int' really faster than 'char' ?
2) If so, then how is it ?

I have provided Info found in that doc.
Since 'int' is the fastest data type in C, "Method 1" is better than
any other implementations.

Method 1)
typedef int BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

Method 2)
typedef char BOOLEAN
#define TRUE(1)
#define FALSE(0)

So, It has been stated 'int' is faster than 'char' .
Of the above two type of methods, Method 2 is found to be slow because
it uses 'char'.
Is it so ? How ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru
Click to expand...


In this context it will not matter much since its boolean (usually used as
return type). So not much runtime wasted. But it saves memory (if used for
static or global vars). In one case int is definitely faster than char : On
most RISC processors use of int rather than char for a loop index.
 
A

Army1987

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:49:09 +0200, Ravishankar S wrote:

[about using int or char]
In this context it will not matter much since its boolean (usually used as
return type). So not much runtime wasted. But it saves memory (if used for
static or global vars). In one case int is definitely faster than char : On
most RISC processors use of int rather than char for a loop index.
Click to expand...
If you don't care about time and want to save space, use char.
 
P

pete

Army1987 said:
If you don't care about time and want to save space, use char.
Click to expand...

An array of char will save space over an array of int,
but for single or a few objects,
it is possible that all byte size objects may be aligned on an int
boundary and so, not really saving any usable space.

On my machine, the output of new.c is:

The address of ca is 0012FF7C
The address of cb is 0012FF78
The address of cc is 0012FF74

/* BEGIN new.c */

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
char ca = 0;
char cb = 0;
char cc = 0;

printf("The address of ca is %p\n", (void *)&ca);
printf("The address of cb is %p\n", (void *)&cb);
printf("The address of cc is %p\n", (void *)&cc);
return 0;
}

/* END new.c */
 
K

karthikbalaguru

An array of char will save space over an array of int,
but for single or a few objects,
it is possible that all byte size objects may be aligned on an int
boundary and so, not really saving any usable space.

On my machine, the output of new.c is:

The address of ca is 0012FF7C
The address of cb is 0012FF78
The address of cc is 0012FF74

/* BEGIN new.c */

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
char ca = 0;
char cb = 0;
char cc = 0;

printf("The address of ca is %p\n", (void *)&ca);
printf("The address of cb is %p\n", (void *)&cb);
printf("The address of cc is %p\n", (void *)&cc);
return 0;

}

/* END new.c */
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting . So, it is not necessarily only that of
Structure's that behave like that .
So, Even, single object behave like that. That sounds
interesting :):).

Karthik Balaguru
 
A

Army1987

[snip signatures unless you're commenting on them]
Sounds interesting . So, it is not necessarily only that of
Structure's that behave like that .
So, Even, single object behave like that. That sounds
interesting :):).
Click to expand...
ca only occupies 0012FF7C. A char occupies one byte. An array
of three chars occupies three bytes. Simply, the placement of
automatic variable is unspecified. In that example, not only there
are gaps, but the order is 'wrong', too.
 
P

pete

ca only occupies 0012FF7C. A char occupies one byte. An array
of three chars occupies three bytes. Simply, the placement of
automatic variable is unspecified.
Click to expand...

But my point is, that the space saved that way,
may or may not be *usable* space.

It's only extremely very rarely that I declare a single object
of a type which is subject to integer promotions.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

why printf("%d", arg) works with arg of type int, short, char 21
STRING - Remove small letters from string 1
++x is more optimised than x++ ??? 17
Linux: using "clone3" and "waitid" 0
Memset is faster than simple loop? 24
struct padding is slower than struct packing 13
Is it good to use char instead of int to save memory? 82
Casting int from char pointer 13

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 51 (members: 0, guests: 51)
Robots: 439

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,576
Members
45,054
Latest member
LucyCarper

Latest Threads

Top