Many algorithms require to compute (-1)^n (both integer), usually as a factor in a series. That is, a factor that is -1 for odd n and 1 for even n. In a C++ environment, one often sees:

#include<iostream>
#include<cmath>
int main(){
   int n = 13;
   std::cout << std::pow(-1, n) << std::endl;
}

What is better or the usual convention? (or something else),

std::pow(-1, n)
std::pow(-1, n%2)
(n%2?-1:1)
(1-2*(n%2))  // (gives incorrect value for negative n)

EDIT:

In addition, user @SeverinPappadeux proposed another alternative based on (a global?) array lookups. My version of it is:

const int res[] {-1, 1, -1}; // three elements are needed for negative modulo results
const int* const m1pow = res + 1; 
...
m1pow[n%2]

This is not probably not going to settle the question but, by using the emitted code we can discard some options.

First without optimization, the final contenders are:

   1 - ((n & 1) << 1);

(7 operation, no memory access)

  mov eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-20]
  add eax, eax
  and eax, 2
  mov edx, 1
  sub edx, eax
  mov eax, edx
  mov DWORD PTR [rbp-16], eax

and

   retvals[n&1];

(5 operations, memory --registers?-- access)

  mov eax, DWORD PTR [rbp-20]
  and eax, 1
  cdqe
  mov eax, DWORD PTR main::retvals[0+rax*4]
  mov DWORD PTR [rbp-8], eax

Now with optimization (-O3)

   1 - ((n & 1) << 1);

(4 operation, no memory access)

  add edx, edx
  mov ebp, 1
  and edx, 2
  sub ebp, edx

.

  retvals[n&1];

(4 operations, memory --registers?-- access)

  mov eax, edx
  and eax, 1
  movsx rcx, eax
  mov r12d, DWORD PTR main::retvals[0+rcx*4]

.

   n%2?-1:1;

(4 operations, no memory access)

  cmp eax, 1
  sbb ebx, ebx
  and ebx, 2
  sub ebx, 1

The test are here. I had to some some acrobatics to have meaningful code that doesn't elide operations all together.

Conclusion (for now)

So at the end it depends on the level optimization and expressiveness:

• 1 - ((n & 1) << 1); is always good but not very expressive.
• retvals[n&1]; pays a price for memory access.
• n%2?-1:1; is expressive and good but only with optimization.

Solution 1:

You can use (n & 1) instead of n % 2 and << 1 instead of * 2 if you want to be super-pedantic, er I mean optimized.
So the fastest way to compute in an 8086 processor is:

1 - ((n & 1) << 1)

I just want to clarify where this answer is coming from. The original poster alfC did an excellent job of posting a lot of different ways to compute (-1)^n some being faster than others.
Nowadays with processors being as fast as they are and optimizing compilers being as good as they are we usually value readability over the slight (even negligible) improvements from shaving a few CPU cycles from an operation.
There was a time when one pass compilers ruled the earth and MUL operations were new and decadent; in those days a power of 2 operation was an invitation for gratuitous optimization.

Solution 2:

Usually you don't actually calculate (-1)^n, instead you track the current sign (as a number being either -1 or 1) and flip it every operation (sign = -sign), do this as you handle your n in order and you will get the same result.

EDIT: Note that part of the reason I recommend this is because there is rarely actually semantic value is the representation (-1)^n it is merely a convenient method of flipping the sign between iterations.

Solution 3:

First of all, the fastest isOdd test I do know (in an inline method)

/**
* Return true if the value is odd
* @value the value to check
*/
inline bool isOdd(int value)
{
return (value & 1);
}

Then make use of this test to return -1 if odd, 1 otherwise (which is the actual output of (-1)^N )

/**
* Return the computation of (-1)^N
* @n the N factor
*/
inline int minusOneToN(int n)
{
return isOdd(n)?-1:1;
}

Last as suggested @Guvante, you can spare a multiplication just flipping the sign of a value (avoiding using the minusOneToN function)

/**
* Example of the general usage. Avoids a useless multiplication
* @value The value to flip if it is odd
*/
inline int flipSignIfOdd(int value)
{
return isOdd(value)?-value:value;
}

Solution 4:

Many algorithms require to compute (-1)^n (both integer), usually as a factor in a series. That is, a factor that is -1 for odd n and 1 for even n.

Consider evaluating the series as a function of -x instead.

Solution 5:

If it's speed you need, here goes ...

int inline minus_1_pow(int n) {
    static const int retvals[] {1, -1}; 
    return retvals[n&1];
}

The Visual C++ compiler with optimization turned to 11 compiles this down to two machine instructions, neither of which is a branch. It optimizes-away the retvals array also, so no cache misses.