Not necessarily faster but you should measure anyway, just in case - my optimisation mantra is "measure, don't guess"
.
But I believe it's clearer in intent (and simple enough to be translated to a simpler calculator language. It's also able to handle arbitrarily sized integers.
int hasDupes (unsigned int n) {
// Flag to indicate digit has been used, all zero to start.
int used[10] = {0};
// More than 10 digits must have duplicates, return true quickly.
if (n > 9999999999) return 1;
// Process each digit in number.
while (n != 0) {
// If duplicate, return true as soon as found.
if (used[n%10]) return 1;
// Otherwise, mark used, go to next digit.
used[n%10] = 1;
n /= 10;
}
// No duplicates after checking all digits, return false.
return 0;
}
If you have a limited range of possibilities, you can use the time-honoured approach of sacrificing space for time. For example, let's say you're talking about numbers between 0 and 999 inclusive (the : :
markers simply indicate data I've removed to keep the size of the answer manageable):
const int *hasDupes = {
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // 0 - 9
0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // 10 - 19
0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, // 20 - 29
: :
0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, // 520 - 529
: :
0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, // 810 - 819
: :
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, // 970 - 979
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, // 980 - 989
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, // 990 - 999
};
and just do a table lookup of hasDupes[n]
. The table itself could be generated (once) programmatically and then just inserted into your code for usage.
However, based on your edit where you state you need to handle nine-digit numbers, a billion-element array is probably not going to be possible on your calculator. I would therefore opt for the first solution.