Is there any way to round numbers in C?
I do not want to use ceil and floor. Is there any other alternative?
I came across this code snippet when I Googled for the answer:
(int)(num < 0 ? (num - 0.5) : (num + 0.5))
The above line always prints the value as 4 even when float num =4.9.
you can use #define round(a) (int) (a+0.5) as macro so whenever you write round(1.6) it returns 2 and whenever you write round(1.3) it return 1.
Rounding to the Nearest Integer If the digit in the tenths place is less than 5, then round down, which means the units digit remains the same; if the digit in the tenths place is 5 or greater, then round up, which means you should increase the unit digit by one.
In the C Programming Language, the ceil function returns the smallest integer that is greater than or equal to x (ie: rounds up the nearest integer).
4.9 + 0.5 is 5.4, which cannot possibly round to 4 unless your compiler is seriously broken.
I just confirmed that the Googled code gives the correct answer for 4.9.
marcelo@macbookpro-1:~$ cat round.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
float num = 4.9;
int n = (int)(num < 0 ? (num - 0.5) : (num + 0.5));
printf("%d\n", n);
}
marcelo@macbookpro-1:~$ make round && ./round
cc round.c -o round
5
marcelo@macbookpro-1:~$
To round a float
in C, there are 3 <math.h>
functions to meet the need. Recommend rintf()
.
float nearbyintf(float x);
The
nearbyint
functions round their argument to an integer value in floating-point format, using the current rounding direction and without raising the ‘‘inexact’’ floating point exception. C11dr §7.12.9.3 2
or
float rintf(float x);
The
rint
functions differ from thenearbyint
functions (7.12.9.3) only in that therint
functions may raise the ‘‘inexact’’ floating-point exception if the result differs in value from the argument. C11dr §7.12.9.4 2
or
float roundf(float x);
The
round
functions round their argument to the nearest integer value in floating-point format, rounding halfway cases away from zero, regardless of the current rounding direction. C11dr §7.12.9.6 2
Example
#include <fenv.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void rtest(const char *fname, double (*f)(double x), double x) {
printf("Clear inexact flag :%s\n", feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT) ? "Fail" : "Success");
printf("Set round to nearest mode:%s\n", fesetround(FE_TONEAREST) ? "Fail" : "Success");
double y = (*f)(x);
printf("%s(%f) --> %f\n", fname,x,y);
printf("Inexact flag :%s\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) ? "Inexact" : "Exact");
puts("");
}
int main(void) {
double x = 8.5;
rtest("nearbyint", nearbyint, x);
rtest("rint", rint, x);
rtest("round", round, x);
return 0;
}
Output
Clear inexact flag :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
nearbyint(8.500000) --> 8.000000
Inexact flag :Exact
Clear inexact flag :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
rint(8.500000) --> 8.000000
Inexact flag :Inexact
Clear inexact flag :Success
Set round to nearest mode:Success
round(8.500000) --> 9.000000
Inexact flag :Exact
What is weak about OP's code?
(int)(num < 0 ? (num - 0.5) : (num + 0.5))
Should num
have a value not near the int
range, the cast (int)
results in undefined behavior.
When num +/- 0.5
results in an inexact answer. This is unlikely here as 0.5
is a double
causing the addition to occur at a higher precision than float
. When num
and 0.5
have the same precision, adding 0.5
to a number may result in numerical rounded answer. (This is not the whole number rounding of OP's post.) Example: the number just less than 0.5 should round to 0 per OP's goal, yet num + 0.5
results in an exact answer between 1.0 and the smallest double
just less than 1.0. Since the exact answer is not representable, that sum rounds, typically to 1.0 leading to an incorrect answer. A similar situation occurs with large numbers.
OP's dilemma about "The above line always prints the value as 4 even when float num =4.9
." is not explainable as stated. Additional code/information is needed. I suspect OP may have used int num = 4.9;
.
// avoid all library calls
// Relies on UINTMAX_MAX >= FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER - 1
float my_roundf(float x) {
// Test for large values of x
// All of the x values are whole numbers and need no rounding
#define FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER (FLT_RADIX/FLT_EPSILON)
if (x >= FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER) return x;
if (x <= -FLT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_INTEGER) return x;
// Positive numbers
// Important: _no_ precision lost in the subtraction
// This is the key improvement over OP's method
if (x > 0) {
float floor_x = (float)(uintmax_t) x;
if (x - floor_x >= 0.5) floor_x += 1.0f;
return floor_x;
}
if (x < 0) return -my_roundf(-x);
return x; // x is 0.0, -0.0 or NaN
}
Tested little - will do so later when I have time.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea. That code depends on casts, and I'm fairly sure that the exact truncation is undefined.
float result = (num - floor(num) > 0.5) ? ceil(num) : floor(num);
I'd say that this is a much better way (which is basically what Shiroko posted) since it doesn't depend on any casts.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With