Comment by cs_loser | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs_loser | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Is it pretty common? As someone who does a fair number of software engineer interviews, that's a trick question. The real answer to "swap two vars with no temps" is:

1. Don't be clever in our code base. Use a temp variable. 2. There's various dumb tricks with XOR, and possibly add/subtract if overflows don't break. 3. A sequence of several instructions where each of them requires the result of the previous one may not execute particularly fast on modern processors. Instruction/cycle counts -- like 3 -- are great when there's no pipeline and no cache, but otherwise pretty much useless. 4. The things you're swapping might be local variables, and when the compiler has -O <anything> specified, local variables start getting weird, and "swap" can sometimes be done in zero instructions, namely by the compiler noting that they have now been swapped and using the other one for the rest of the basic block. (or further dominated basic blocks for that matter) 5. If the things you're swapping are in main memory, or even if it's not in L1, you're going to be incurring a cost much greater than the temporary use of a register. (and, if you don't know where they are and it might be main memory, this might dominate the average runtime)

The answer is definitely not "three xors".

Embedded and firmware engineering questions expect this as an answer. Anyone following your advice will not be taken seriously. This is true regardless of whether you're correct factually. Readers of this thread deserve to know that.

3 is actually a quite valid point for embedded. Any swap actually will be expensive when it comes to keeping cache lines clean. The correct answer in that case is just to not swap the variables, and instead swap their uses later on:

    int x, y;
    ...
    SWAP(x, y);
    foo(x, y);

becomes

    int x, y;
    ...
    foo(y, x);

(naturally, this is why I still eagerly await the arrival of a C compiler that has macros with LISP power)

In that case, you can get the right behavior by just swapping the variables using a temporary variable. If the compiler is decent, it'll automatically swap their uses later on.

I don't know how every compiler works, but if you use Clang (or anything LLVM-based), it converts everything to Single Static Assignment (SSA) form:

    int x1 = 42, y1 = 666;
    ...
    int tmp = x1; x2 = y1; y2 = tmp;  // SWAP(x, y)
    foo(x2, y2);

In SSA form, the value of a variable does not change, so it ends up creating a bunch of "imaginary" variables to hold intermediate values. From there, it does optimizations, then figures out how best to allocate registers, and what needs to be stack-allocated.

Cool, thanks. I know far too little about compiler optimizations, it's always nice to hear about them.

It's already there:

http://chaos-pp.cvs.sourceforge.net/chaos-pp/order-pp/exampl...

But I do not envy the poor soul who would have to maintain all this cleverness.

Most of the hacks in that guide assume that you don't care about readability or even portability to a certain extent. It certainly isn't everyday that you need to optimize your code at that level, but in some instances it could be useful (for example trying to reduce delay in a real-time program.)

The question I've heard is to just swap 2 variables, no restrictions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com