Rearrange the pipeline of `pow` to gain efficiency

The check of the `exp` parameter seems useless if we execute the while-loop more than once.
The original implementation of `pow` function using one more comparison if the `exp==0` and may break the pipeline of the cpu, which may generate a slower code.
The performance gap between the old and the new implementation may be small, but IMO, at least the newer one looks more beautiful.

---

bench prog:
```
extern crate test;
($a:expr)=>{let time=std::time::Instant::now();{$a;}print!("{:?} ",time.elapsed())};
($a:expr,$b:literal)=>{let time=std::time::Instant::now();let mut a=0;for _ in 0..$b{a^=$a;}print!("{:?} {} ",time.elapsed(),a)}
}
pub fn pow_rust(x:i64, mut exp: u32) -> i64 {
    let mut base = x;
    let mut acc = 1;
    while exp > 1 {
        if (exp & 1) == 1 {
            acc = acc * base;
        }
        exp /= 2;
        base = base * base;
    }
    if exp == 1 {
        acc = acc * base;
    }
    acc
}
pub fn pow_new(x:i64, mut exp: u32) -> i64 {
    if exp==0{
        1
    }else{
        let mut base = x;
        let mut acc = 1;
        while exp > 1 {
            if (exp & 1) == 1 {
                acc = acc * base;
            }
            exp >>= 1;
            base = base * base;
        }
        acc * base
    }
}

fn main(){
let a=2i64;
let b=1_u32;
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
timing!(test::black_box(a).pow(test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_new(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
timing!(pow_rust(test::black_box(a),test::black_box(b)),100000000);
println!();
}
```
bench in my laptop:
```
neutron@Neutron:/me/rust$ rc commit.rs
rustc commit.rs  && ./commit

3.978419716s 0 4.079765171s 0 3.964630622s 0
3.997127013s 0 4.260304804s 0 3.997638211s 0
3.963195544s 0 4.11657718s 0 4.176054164s 0
3.830128579s 0 3.980396122s 0 3.937258567s 0
3.986055948s 0 4.127804162s 0 4.018943411s 0
4.185568857s 0 4.217512517s 0 3.98313603s 0
3.863018225s 0 4.030447988s 0 3.694878237s 0
4.206987927s 0 4.137608047s 0 4.115564664s 0
neutron@Neutron:/me/rust$ rc commit.rs -O
rustc commit.rs -O && ./commit

162.111993ms 0 165.107125ms 0 166.26924ms 0
175.20479ms 0 205.062565ms 0 176.278791ms 0
174.408975ms 0 166.526899ms 0 201.857604ms 0
146.190062ms 0 168.592821ms 0 154.61411ms 0
199.678912ms 0 168.411598ms 0 162.129996ms 0
147.420765ms 0 209.759326ms 0 154.807907ms 0
165.507134ms 0 188.476239ms 0 157.351524ms 0
121.320123ms 0 126.401229ms 0 114.86428ms 0
```

delete an unnecessary semicolon...

Sorry for the typo.

delete trailing whitespace

Sorry, too..

Sorry for the missing...

I checked all the implementations, and finally found that there is one function that does not check whether `exp == 0`

add extra tests

add extra tests.

finished adding the extra tests to prevent further typo

add pow(2) to negative exp

add whitespace.

add whitespace

add whitespace

delete extra line

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions