Rounding integer division (instead of truncating)

Question

I was curious to know how I can round a number to the nearest whole number. For instance, if I had:

int a = 59 / 4;

which would be 14.75 if calculated in floating point; how can I store the result as 15 in "a"?

Answer 1

int a = 59.0f / 4.0f + 0.5f;

This only works when assigning to an int as it discards anything after the '.'

Edit: This solution will only work in the simplest of cases. A more robust solution would be:

unsigned int round_closest(unsigned int dividend, unsigned int divisor)
{
    return (dividend + (divisor / 2)) / divisor;
}

Answer 2

The standard idiom for integer rounding up is:

int a = (59 + (4 - 1)) / 4;

You add the divisor minus one to the dividend.

Answer 3

A code that works for any sign in dividend and divisor:

int divRoundClosest(const int n, const int d)
{
  return ((n < 0) ^ (d < 0)) ? ((n - d/2)/d) : ((n + d/2)/d);
}

If you prefer a macro:

#define DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(n, d) ((((n) < 0) ^ ((d) < 0)) ? (((n) - (d)/2)/(d)) : (((n) + (d)/2)/(d)))

The linux kernel macro DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST doesn't work for negative divisors!

Answer 4

You should instead use something like this:

int a = (59 - 1)/ 4 + 1;

I assume that you are really trying to do something more general:

int divide(x, y)
{
   int a = (x -1)/y +1;

   return a;
}

x + (y-1) has the potential to overflow giving the incorrect result; whereas, x - 1 will only underflow if x = min_int...

Answer 5

(Edited) Rounding integers with floating point is the easiest solution to this problem; however, depending on the problem set is may be possible. For example, in embedded systems the floating point solution may be too costly.

Doing this using integer math turns out to be kind of hard and a little unintuitive. The first posted solution worked okay for the the problem I had used it for but after characterizing the results over the range of integers it turned out to be very bad in general. Looking through several books on bit twiddling and embedded math return few results. A couple of notes. First, I only tested for positive integers, my work does not involve negative numerators or denominators. Second, and exhaustive test of 32 bit integers is computational prohibitive so I started with 8 bit integers and then mades sure that I got similar results with 16 bit integers.

I started with the 2 solutions that I had previously proposed:

#define DIVIDE_WITH_ROUND(N, D) (((N) == 0) ? 0:(((N * 10)/D) + 5)/10)

#define DIVIDE_WITH_ROUND(N, D) (N == 0) ? 0:(N - D/2)/D + 1;

My thought was that the first version would overflow with big numbers and the second underflow with small numbers. I did not take 2 things into consideration. 1.) the 2nd problem is actually recursive since to get the correct answer you have to properly round D/2. 2.) In the first case you often overflow and then underflow, the two canceling each other out. Here is an error plot of the two (incorrect) algorithms:

This plot shows that the first algorithm is only incorrect for small denominators (0 < d < 10). Unexpectedly it actually handles large numerators better than the 2nd version.

Here is a plot of the 2nd algorithm:

As expected it fails for small numerators but also fails for more large numerators than the 1st version.

Clearly this is the better starting point for a correct version:

#define DIVIDE_WITH_ROUND(N, D) (((N) == 0) ? 0:(((N * 10)/D) + 5)/10)

If your denominators is > 10 then this will work correctly.

A special case is needed for D == 1, simply return N. A special case is needed for D== 2, = N/2 + (N & 1) // Round up if odd.

D >= 3 also has problems once N gets big enough. It turns out that larger denominators only have problems with larger numerators. For 8 bit signed number the problem points are

if (D == 3) && (N > 75))
else if ((D == 4) && (N > 100))
else if ((D == 5) && (N > 125))
else if ((D == 6) && (N > 150))
else if ((D == 7) && (N > 175))
else if ((D == 8) && (N > 200))
else if ((D == 9) && (N > 225))
else if ((D == 10) && (N > 250))

(return D/N for these)

So in general the the pointe where a particular numerator gets bad is somewhere around
N > (MAX_INT - 5) * D/10

This is not exact but close. When working with 16 bit or bigger numbers the error < 1% if you just do a C divide (truncation) for these cases.

For 16 bit signed numbers the tests would be

if ((D == 3) && (N >= 9829))
else if ((D == 4) && (N >= 13106))
else if ((D == 5) && (N >= 16382))
else if ((D == 6) && (N >= 19658))
else if ((D == 7) && (N >= 22935))
else if ((D == 8) && (N >= 26211))
else if ((D == 9) && (N >= 29487))
else if ((D == 10) && (N >= 32763))

Of course for unsigned integers MAX_INT would be replaced with MAX_UINT. I am sure there is an exact formula for determining the largest N that will work for a particular D and number of bits but I don't have any more time to work on this problem...

(I seem to be missing this graph at the moment, I will edit and add later.) This is a graph of the 8 bit version with the special cases noted above:![8 bit signed with special cases for 0 < N <= 10 3

Note that for 8 bit the error is 10% or less for all errors in the graph, 16 bit is < 0.1%.

Answer 6

As written, you're performing integer arithmetic, which automatically just truncates any decimal results. To perform floating point arithmetic, either change the constants to be floating point values:

int a = round(59.0 / 4);

Or cast them to a float or other floating point type:

int a = round((float)59 / 4);

Either way, you need to do the final rounding with the round() function in the math.h header, so be sure to #include <math.h> and use a C99 compatible compiler.

Answer 7

From Linux kernel (GPLv2):

/*
 * Divide positive or negative dividend by positive divisor and round
 * to closest integer. Result is undefined for negative divisors and
 * for negative dividends if the divisor variable type is unsigned.
 */
#define DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(x, divisor)(          \
{                           \
    typeof(x) __x = x;              \
    typeof(divisor) __d = divisor;          \
    (((typeof(x))-1) > 0 ||             \
     ((typeof(divisor))-1) > 0 || (__x) > 0) ?  \
        (((__x) + ((__d) / 2)) / (__d)) :   \
        (((__x) - ((__d) / 2)) / (__d));    \
}                           \
)

Answer 8

int a, b;
int c = a / b;
if(a % b) { c++; }

Checking if there is a remainder allows you to manually roundup the quotient of integer division.

Answer 9

#define CEIL(a, b) (((a) / (b)) + (((a) % (b)) > 0 ? 1 : 0))

Another useful MACROS (MUST HAVE):

#define MIN(a, b)  (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
#define MAX(a, b)  (((a) > (b)) ? (a) : (b))
#define ABS(a)     (((a) < 0) ? -(a) : (a))

Answer 10

Here's my solution. I like it because I find it more readable and because it has no branching (neither ifs nor ternaries).

int32_t divide(int32_t a, int32_t b) {
  int32_t resultIsNegative = ((a ^ b) & 0x80000000) >> 31;
  int32_t sign = resultIsNegative*-2+1;
  return (a + (b / 2 * sign)) / b;
}

Full test program that illustrates intended behaviour:

#include <stdint.h>
#include <assert.h>

int32_t divide(int32_t a, int32_t b) {
  int32_t resultIsNegative = ((a ^ b) & 0x80000000) >> 31;
  int32_t sign = resultIsNegative*-2+1;
  return (a + (b / 2 * sign)) / b;
}

int main() {
  assert(divide(0, 3) == 0);

  assert(divide(1, 3) == 0);
  assert(divide(5, 3) == 2);

  assert(divide(-1, 3) == 0);
  assert(divide(-5, 3) == -2);

  assert(divide(1, -3) == 0);
  assert(divide(5, -3) == -2);

  assert(divide(-1, -3) == 0);
  assert(divide(-5, -3) == 2);
}

Answer 11

Borrowing from @ericbn I prefere defines like

#define DIV_ROUND_INT(n,d) ((((n) < 0) ^ ((d) < 0)) ? (((n) - (d)/2)/(d)) : (((n) + (d)/2)/(d)))
or if you work only with unsigned ints
#define DIV_ROUND_UINT(n,d) ((((n) + (d)/2)/(d)))

Answer 12

int divide(x,y){
 int quotient = x/y;
 int remainder = x%y;
 if(remainder==0)
  return quotient;
 int tempY = divide(y,2);
 if(remainder>=tempY)
  quotient++;
 return quotient;
}

eg 59/4 Quotient = 14, tempY = 2, remainder = 3, remainder >= tempY hence quotient = 15;

Answer 13

double a=59.0/4;
int b=59/4;
if(a-b>=0.5){
    b++;
}
printf("%d",b);

1. let exact float value of 59.0/4 be x(here it is 14.750000)
2. let smallest integer less than x be y(here it is 14)
3. if x-y<0.5 then y is the solution
4. else y+1 is the solution

Answer 14

try using math ceil function that makes rounding up. Math Ceil !

Answer 15

If you're dividing positive integers you can shift it up, do the division and then check the bit to the right of the real b0. In other words, 100/8 is 12.5 but would return 12. If you do (100<<1)/8, you can check b0 and then round up after you shift the result back down.

Answer 16

For some algorithms you need a consistent bias when 'nearest' is a tie.

// round-to-nearest with mid-value bias towards positive infinity
int div_nearest( int n, int d )
   {
   if (d<0) n*=-1, d*=-1;
   return (abs(n)+((d-(n<0?1:0))>>1))/d * ((n<0)?-1:+1);
   }

This works regardless of the sign of the numerator or denominator.

---

If you want to match the results of round(N/(double)D) (floating-point division and rounding), here are a few variations that all produce the same results:

int div_nearest( int n, int d )
   {
   int r=(n<0?-1:+1)*(abs(d)>>1); // eliminates a division
// int r=((n<0)^(d<0)?-1:+1)*(d/2); // basically the same as @ericbn
// int r=(n*d<0?-1:+1)*(d/2); // small variation from @ericbn
   return (n+r)/d;
   }

Note: The relative speed of (abs(d)>>1) vs. (d/2) is likely to be platform dependent.

Answer 17

The following correctly rounds the quotient to the nearest integer for both positive and negative operands WITHOUT floating point or conditional branches (see assembly output below). Assumes N-bit 2's complement integers.

#define ASR(x) ((x) < 0 ? -1 : 0)  // Compiles into a (N-1)-bit arithmetic shift right
#define ROUNDING(x,y) ( (y)/2 - (ASR((x)^(y)) & (y)))

int RoundedQuotient(int x, int y)
   {
   return (x + ROUNDING(x,y)) / y ;
   }

The value of ROUNDING will have the same sign as the dividend (x) and half the magnitude of the divisor (y). Adding ROUNDING to the dividend thus increases its magnitude before the integer division truncates the resulting quotient. Here's the output of the gcc compiler with -O3 optimization for a 32-bit ARM Cortex-M4 processor:

RoundedQuotient:                // Input parameters: r0 = x, r1 = y
    eor     r2, r1, r0          // r2 = x^y
    and     r2, r1, r2, asr #31 // r2 = ASR(x^y) & y
    add     r3, r1, r1, lsr #31 // r3 = (y < 0) ? y + 1 : y
    rsb     r3, r2, r3, asr #1  // r3 = y/2 - (ASR(x^y) & y)
    add     r0, r0, r3          // r0 = x + (y/2 - (ASR(x^y) & y)
    sdiv    r0, r0, r1          // r0 = (x + ROUNDING(x,y)) / y
    bx      lr                  // Returns r0 = rounded quotient

Answer 18

Some alternatives for division by 4

return x/4 + (x/2 % 2);
return x/4 + (x % 4 >= 2)

Or in general, division by any power of 2

return x/y + x/(y/2) % 2;    // or
return (x >> i) + ((x >> i - 1) & 1);  // with y = 2^i

It works by rounding up if the fractional part ⩾ 0.5, i.e. the first digit ⩾ base/2. In binary it's equivalent to adding the first fractional bit to the result

This method has an advantage in architectures with a flag register, because the carry flag will contain the last bit that was shifted out. For example on x86 it can be optimized into

shr eax, i
adc eax, 0

It's also easily extended to support signed integers. Notice that the expression for negative numbers is

(x - 1)/y + ((x - 1)/(y/2) & 1)

we can make it work for both positive and negative values with

int t = x + (x >> 31);
return (t >> i) + ((t >> i - 1) & 1);

Answer 19

I ran into the same difficulty. The code below should work for positive integers.

I haven't compiled it yet but I tested the algorithm on a google spreadsheet (I know, wtf) and it was working.

unsigned int integer_div_round_nearest(unsigned int numerator, unsigned int denominator)
{
    unsigned int rem;
    unsigned int floor;
    unsigned int denom_div_2;

    // check error cases
    if(denominator == 0)
        return 0;

    if(denominator == 1)
        return numerator;

    // Compute integer division and remainder
    floor = numerator/denominator;
    rem = numerator%denominator;

    // Get the rounded value of the denominator divided by two
    denom_div_2 = denominator/2;
    if(denominator%2)
        denom_div_2++;

    // If the remainder is bigger than half of the denominator, adjust value
    if(rem >= denom_div_2)
        return floor+1;
    else
        return floor;
}

Answer 20

Safer C code (unless you have other methods of handling /0):

return (_divisor > 0) ? ((_dividend + (_divisor - 1)) / _divisor) : _dividend;

This doesn't handle the problems that occur from having an incorrect return value as a result of your invalid input data, of course.