一位面试官最近问了我这样一个问题:给定三个布尔变量a、b和c，如果三个变量中至少有两个为真，则返回true。
我的解决方案如下:
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
他说这还可以进一步改进，但如何改进呢?
当前回答
作为@TofuBeer TofuBeer精彩帖子的补充，考虑@pdox pdox的回答:
static boolean five(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return a == b ? a : c;
}
再考虑一下它的分解版本，如"javap -c"所给出的:
static boolean five(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: iload_1
2: if_icmpne 9
5: iload_0
6: goto 10
9: iload_2
10: ireturn
Pdox的答案编译成的字节代码比之前的任何答案都要少。它的执行时间与其他的相比如何?
one 5242 ms
two 6318 ms
three (moonshadow) 3806 ms
four 7192 ms
five (pdox) 3650 ms
至少在我的电脑上，pdox的回答比@moonshadow moonshadow的回答稍微快一点，使得pdox的回答是最快的(在我的惠普/英特尔笔记本电脑上)。
其他回答
在Clojure中:
(defn at-least [n & bools]
(>= (count (filter true? bools)) n)
用法:
(at-least 2 true false true)
If the goal is to return a bitwise two-out-of-three value for three operands, arithmetic and iterative approaches are apt to be relatively ineffective. On many CPU architectures, a good form would be "return ((a | b) & c) | (a & b);". That takes four boolean operations. On single-accumulator machines (common in small embedded systems) that's apt to take a total of seven instructions per byte. The form "return (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c);" is perhaps nicer looking, but it would require five boolean operations, or nine instructions per byte on a single-accumulator machine.
顺便提一下，在CMOS逻辑中，计算“不是三选二”需要12个晶体管(相比之下，逆变器需要2个晶体管，双输入NAND或NOR需要4个晶体管，而三输入NAND或NOR需要6个晶体管)。
最简单的方式(IMO)，不容易混淆，容易阅读:
// Three booleans, check if two or more are true
return ( a && ( b || c ) ) || ( b && c );
作为@TofuBeer TofuBeer精彩帖子的补充，考虑@pdox pdox的回答:
static boolean five(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return a == b ? a : c;
}
再考虑一下它的分解版本，如"javap -c"所给出的:
static boolean five(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: iload_1
2: if_icmpne 9
5: iload_0
6: goto 10
9: iload_2
10: ireturn
Pdox的答案编译成的字节代码比之前的任何答案都要少。它的执行时间与其他的相比如何?
one 5242 ms
two 6318 ms
three (moonshadow) 3806 ms
four 7192 ms
five (pdox) 3650 ms
至少在我的电脑上，pdox的回答比@moonshadow moonshadow的回答稍微快一点，使得pdox的回答是最快的(在我的惠普/英特尔笔记本电脑上)。
以下是目前为止的答案:
public class X
{
static boolean a(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
}
static boolean b(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return a ? (b || c) : (b && c);
}
static boolean c(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return ((a & b) | (b & c) | (c & a));
}
static boolean d(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
return ((a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0) >= 2);
}
}
并通过反编译器运行它们(javap -c X > results.txt):
Compiled from "X.java"
public class X extends java.lang.Object{
public X();
Code:
0: aload_0
1: invokespecial #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
4: return
static boolean a(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: ifeq 8
4: iload_1
5: ifne 24
8: iload_1
9: ifeq 16
12: iload_2
13: ifne 24
16: iload_0
17: ifeq 28
20: iload_2
21: ifeq 28
24: iconst_1
25: goto 29
28: iconst_0
29: ireturn
static boolean b(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: ifeq 20
4: iload_1
5: ifne 12
8: iload_2
9: ifeq 16
12: iconst_1
13: goto 33
16: iconst_0
17: goto 33
20: iload_1
21: ifeq 32
24: iload_2
25: ifeq 32
28: iconst_1
29: goto 33
32: iconst_0
33: ireturn
static boolean c(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: iload_1
2: iand
3: iload_1
4: iload_2
5: iand
6: ior
7: iload_2
8: iload_0
9: iand
10: ior
11: ireturn
static boolean d(boolean, boolean, boolean);
Code:
0: iload_0
1: ifeq 8
4: iconst_1
5: goto 9
8: iconst_0
9: iload_1
10: ifeq 17
13: iconst_1
14: goto 18
17: iconst_0
18: iadd
19: iload_2
20: ifeq 27
23: iconst_1
24: goto 28
27: iconst_0
28: iadd
29: iconst_2
30: if_icmplt 37
33: iconst_1
34: goto 38
37: iconst_0
38: ireturn
}
你可以看到?:那些比你原来的修复版本稍好。最好的方法是完全避免分支的方法。从更少的指令(在大多数情况下)的角度来看，这很好，对于CPU的分支预测部分来说也更好，因为分支预测中的错误猜测可能会导致CPU失速。
我觉得最有效的是《月影》里的那个。它平均使用最少的指令，减少了CPU中管道停顿的机会。
为了100%确定，您需要找出每条指令的成本(以CPU周期为单位)，不幸的是，这是不容易获得的(您必须查看热点的源代码，然后查看CPU供应商的规格，以确定每条生成指令所花费的时间)。
请参阅Rotsor对代码的运行时分析的更新答案。
