I am having trouble with bitwise manipulation.
To do: The hex value of the most significant nibble of x equals y (assume 0 <= y <= 15)
Restrictions: may not use equality (==) or inequality (!=) tests, relative comparison operators, division, modulus, and multiplication, conditionals.
Problem: I need to make my function so that when msb = y it returns 1 and if it is not true 0. However, I keep getting zero even when i run it with 0xff. If someone could point me in the right direction that would be great. Thank you.
int sig_nib(int x, int y){
int shifright = x >> 27;
int result = shifright & y;
return (result ^ y);
}
Silly restrictions. Who broke your compiler?
Something like this should do it:
bool sig_nib(int x, int y)
{
const int top4 = (x >> 28) & 0xf;
return !(top4 ^ y);
}
It uses Boolean inversion (!) to re-interpret the integer result from the bitwise-xor.
Related
I am doing CSAPP's datalab, the isGreater function.
Here's the description
isGreater - if x > y then return 1, else return 0
Example: isGreater(4,5) = 0, isGreater(5,4) = 1
Legal ops: ! ~ & ^ | + << >>
Max ops: 24
Rating: 3
x and y are both int type.
So i consider to simulate the jg instruction to implement it.Here's my code
int isGreater(int x, int y)
{
int yComplement = ~y + 1;
int minusResult = x + yComplement; // 0xffffffff
int SF = (minusResult >> 31) & 0x1; // 1
int ZF = !minusResult; // 0
int xSign = (x >> 31) & 0x1; // 0
int ySign = (yComplement >> 31) & 0x1; // 1
int OF = !(xSign ^ ySign) & (xSign ^ SF); // 0
return !(OF ^ SF) & !ZF;
}
The jg instruction need SF == OF and ZF == 0.
But it can't pass a special case, that is, x = 0x7fffffff(INT_MAX), y = 0x80000000(INT_MIN).
I deduce it like this:
x + yComplement = 0xffffffff, so SF = 1, ZF = 0, since xSign != ySign, the OF is set to 0.
So, what's wrong with my code, is my OF setting operation wrong?
You're detecting overflow in the addition x + yComplement, rather than in the overall subtraction
-INT_MIN itself overflows in 2's complement; INT_MIN == -INT_MIN. This is the 2's complement anomaly1.
You should be getting fast-positive overflow detection for any negative number (other than INT_MIN) minus INT_MIN. The resulting addition will have signed overflow. e.g. -10 + INT_MIN overflows.
http://teaching.idallen.com/dat2343/10f/notes/040_overflow.txt has a table of input/output signs for add and subtraction. The cases that overflow are where the inputs signs are opposite but the result sign matches y.
SUBTRACTION SIGN BITS (for num1 - num2 = sum)
num1sign num2sign sumsign
---------------------------
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
*OVER* 0 1 1 (subtracting a negative is the same as adding a positive)
*OVER* 1 0 0 (subtracting a positive is the same as adding a negative)
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
You could use this directly with the original x and y, and only use yComplement as part of getting the minusResult. Adjust your logic to match this truth table.
Or you could use int ySign = (~y) >> 31; and leave the rest of your code unmodified. (Use a tmp to hold ~y so you only do the operation once, for this and yComplement). The one's complement inverse (~) does not suffer from the 2's complement anomaly.
Footnote 1: sign/magnitude and one's complement have two redundant ways to represent 0, instead of an value with no inverse.
Fun fact: if you make an integer absolute-value function, you should consider the result unsigned to avoid this problem. int can't represent the absolute value of INT_MIN.
Efficiency improvements:
If you use unsigned int, you don't need & 1 after a shift because logical shifts don't sign-extend. (And as a bonus, it would avoid C signed-overflow undefined behaviour in +: http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html).
Then (if you used uint32_t, or sizeof(unsigned) * CHAR_BIT instead of 31) you'd have a safe and portable implementation of 2's complement comparison. (signed shift semantics for negative numbers are implementation-defined in C.) I think you're using C as a sort of pseudo-code for bit operations, and aren't interested in actually writing a portable implementation, and that's fine. The way you're doing things will work on normal compilers on normal CPUs.
Or you can use & 0x80000000 to leave the high bits in place (but then you'd have to left shift your ! result).
It's just the lab's restriction, you can't use unsigned or any constant larger than 0xff(255)
Ok, so you don't have access to logical right shift. Still, you need at most one &1. It's ok to work with numbers where all you care about is the low bit, but where the rest hold garbage.
You eventually do & !ZF, which is either &0 or &1. Thus, any high garbage in OF` is wiped away.
You can also delay the >> 31 until after XORing together two numbers.
This is a fun problem that I want to optimize myself:
// untested, 13 operations
int isGreater_optimized(int x, int y)
{
int not_y = ~y;
int minus_y = not_y + 1;
int sum = x + minus_y;
int x_vs_y = x ^ y; // high bit = 1 if they were opposite signs: OF is possible
int x_vs_sum = x ^ sum; // high bit = 1 if they were opposite signs: OF is possible
int OF = (x_vs_y & x_vs_sum) >> 31; // high bits hold garbage
int SF = sum >> 31;
int non_zero = !!sum; // 0 or 1
return (~(OF ^ SF)) & non_zero; // high garbage is nuked by `& 1`
}
Note the use of ~ instead of ! to invert a value that has high garbage.
It looks like there's still some redundancy in calculating OF separately from SF, but actually the XORing of sum twice doesn't cancel out. x ^ sum is an input for &, and we XOR with sum after that.
We can delay the shifts even later, though, and I found some more optimizations by avoiding an extra inversion. This is 11 operations
// replace 31 with sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT if you want. #include <limit.h>
// or use int32_t
int isGreater_optimized2(int x, int y)
{
int not_y = ~y;
int minus_y = not_y + 1;
int sum = x + minus_y;
int SF = sum; // value in the high bit, rest are garbage
int x_vs_y = x ^ y; // high bit = 1 if they were opposite signs: OF is possible
int x_vs_sum = x ^ sum; // high bit = 1 if they were opposite signs: OF is possible
int OF = x_vs_y & x_vs_sum; // low bits hold garbage
int less = (OF ^ SF);
int ZF = !sum; // 0 or 1
int le = (less >> 31) & ZF; // clears high garbage
return !le; // jg == jnle
}
I wondered if any compilers might see through this manual compare and optimize it into cmp edi, esi/ setg al, but no such luck :/ I guess that's not a pattern that they look for, because code that could have been written as x > y tends to be written that way :P
But anyway, here's the x86 asm output from gcc and clang on the Godbolt compiler explorer.
Assuming two's complement, INT_MIN's absolute value isn't representable as an int. So, yComplement == y (ie. still negative), and ySign is 1 instead of the desired 0.
You could instead calculate the sign of y like this (changing as little as possible in your code) :
int ySign = !((y >> 31) & 0x1);
For a more detailed analysis, and a more optimal alternative, check Peter Cordes' answer.
I know this is an age old question and you probably have come across this aswell, but there's a bug in my solution and I don't know how to solve it. I need to write a function that compares two integers. I am only allowed to use the operations (!,~,&,^,|,+,>>,<<) and also no control structures(if,else loops etc).
isGreater(int x, int y) {
//returns 1 if x > y.
return ((y+(~x+1))>>31)&1;
}
my idea is simple, we compute y-x, we shift by 31 to get the sign bit, if it's negative, then we return zero else we return 1. This fails when x is negative and falsly returns 1 although it should return zero. I'm stuck at this and don't know how to proceed.
We assume that integer is 32bits and uses two's complement representation. This question is NOT about portability.
Some help would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Hacker's Delight has a chapter Comparison Predicates, which is exactly what we need here.
One of the things it writes is:
x < y: (x - y) ^ ((x ^ y) & ((x - y) ^ x))
Which we can use almost directly, except that x and y should be swapped, the subtractions must be replaced by something legal, and the result appears in the top bit instead of the lowest bit. Fortunately a - b == ~(~a + b) so that's not too hard. First applying those transformations:
// swap x <-> y
(y - x) ^ ((y ^ x) & ((y - x) ^ y))
// rewrite subtraction
~(~y + x) ^ ((y ^ x) & (~(~y + x) ^ y))
// get answer in lsb
((~(~y + x) ^ ((y ^ x) & (~(~y + x) ^ y))) >> 31) & 1
I have a website here that says it works.
If local variables are allowed it can be simplified a bit by factoring out the subexpression
~(~y + x):
int diff = ~(~y + x);
return ((diff ^ ((y ^ x) & (diff ^ y))) >> 31) & 1;
First of all let's clarify that we assume:
negative integers are represented in 2's complement
int is exactly 32 bits wide and long long is exactly 64 bits wide
right shifting a negative number is an arithmetic shift
There is a problem with the (~x+1) part in your solution which is supposed to return -x. The problem is that the absolute value of INT_MIN is greater than the absolute value of INT_MAX, thus when x is INT_MIN then (~x+1) yields INT_MIN instead of -INT_MIN as you expected.
There's also a problem with overflows in the y+(-x) part of your solution (second step).
Now if you're allowed to use other types than int, we can solve both of these problems by casting the values to long long before the conversion, assuming that it's a 64-bit type, so that (~x+1) would return the expected result -x and y+(-x) would not cause any overflows. Then, obviously, we will have to change the >>31 bit to >>63.
The end solution is as follows:
static bool isGreater(int x, int y) {
long long llx = x;
long long lly = y;
long long result = ((lly+(~llx+1))>>63)&1;
return result;
}
It's feasible to test it with some corner-cases, such as x == INT_MIN, x == 0 and x == INT_MAX:
int main(void) {
int x = INT_MIN;
for (long long y = INT_MIN; y <= INT_MAX; ++y) {
assert(isGreater(x, y) == (x > y));
}
x = INT_MAX;
for (long long y = INT_MIN; y <= INT_MAX; ++y) {
assert(isGreater(x, y) == (x > y));
}
x = 0;
for (long long y = INT_MIN; y <= INT_MAX; ++y) {
assert(isGreater(x, y) == (x > y));
}
}
This was successful on my particular machine with my particular compiler. The testing took 163 seconds.
But again, this depends on being able to use other types than int (but then again with more work you could emulate long long with int).
This whole thing could be more portable if you used int32_t and int64_t instead of int and long long, accordingly. However, it still would not be portable:
ISO/IEC 9899:2011 ยง6.5.7 Bitwise shift operators
5 The result of E1 >> E2is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a nonnegative value, the value of the result is the integral part of the quotient of E1 / 2E2. If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation-defined.
I've been working on this puzzle for awhile. I'm trying to figure out how to rotate 4 bits in a number (x) around to the left (with wrapping) by n where 0 <= n <= 31.. The code will look like:
moveNib(int x, int n){
//... some code here
}
The trick is that I can only use these operators:
~ & ^ | + << >>
and of them only a combination of 25. I also can not use If statements, loops, function calls. And I may only use type int.
An example would be moveNib(0x87654321,1) = 0x76543218.
My attempt: I have figured out how to use a mask to store the the bits and all but I can't figure out how to move by an arbitrary number. Any help would be appreciated thank you!
How about:
uint32_t moveNib(uint32_t x, int n) { return x<<(n<<2) | x>>((8-n)<<2); }
It uses <<2 to convert from nibbles to bits, and then shifts the bits by that much. To handle wraparound, we OR by a copy of the number which has been shifted by the opposite amount in the opposite direciton. For example, with x=0x87654321 and n=1, the left part is shifted 4 bits to the left and becomes 0x76543210, and the right part is shifted 28 bits to the right and becomes 0x00000008, and when ORed together, the result is 0x76543218, as requested.
Edit: If - really isn't allowed, then this will get the same result (assuming an architecture with two's complement integers) without using it:
uint32_t moveNib(uint32_t x, int n) { return x<<(n<<2) | x>>((9+~n)<<2); }
Edit2: OK. Since you aren't allowed to use anything but int, how about this, then?
int moveNib(int x, int n) { return (x&0xffffffff)<<(n<<2) | (x&0xffffffff)>>((9+~n)<<2); }
The logic is the same as before, but we force the calculation to use unsigned integers by ANDing with 0xffffffff. All this assumes 32 bit integers, though. Is there anything else I have missed now?
Edit3: Here's one more version, which should be a bit more portable:
int moveNib(int x, int n) { return ((x|0u)<<((n&7)<<2) | (x|0u)>>((9+~(n&7))<<2))&0xffffffff; }
It caps n as suggested by chux, and uses |0u to convert to unsigned in order to avoid the sign bit duplication you get with signed integers. This works because (from the standard):
Otherwise, if the operand that has unsigned integer type has rank greater or equal to the rank of the type of the other operand, then the operand with signed integer type is converted to the type of the operand with unsigned integer type.
Since int and 0u have the same rank, but 0u is unsigned, then the result is unsigned, even though ORing with 0 otherwise would be a null operation.
It then truncates the result to the range of a 32-bit int so that the function will still work if ints have more bits than this (though the rotation will still be performed on the lowest 32 bits in that case. A 64-bit version would replace 7 by 15, 9 by 17 and truncate using 0xffffffffffffffff).
This solution uses 12 operators (11 if you skip the truncation, 10 if you store n&7 in a variable).
To see what happens in detail here, let's go through it for the example you gave: x=0x87654321, n=1. x|0u results in a the unsigned number 0x87654321u. (n&7)<<2=4, so we will shift 4 bits to the left, while ((9+~(n&7))<<2=28, so we will shift 28 bits to the right. So putting this together, we will compute 0x87654321u<<4 | 0x87654321u >> 28. For 32-bit integers, this is 0x76543210|0x8=0x76543218. But for 64-bit integers it is 0x876543210|0x8=0x876543218, so in that case we need to truncate to 32 bits, which is what the final &0xffffffff does. If the integers are shorter than 32 bits, then this won't work, but your example in the question had 32 bits, so I assume the integer types are at least that long.
As a small side-note: If you allow one operator which is not on the list, the sizeof operator, then we can make a version that works with all the bits of a longer int automatically. Inspired by Aki, we get (using 16 operators (remember, sizeof is an operator in C)):
int moveNib(int x, int n) {
int nbit = (n&((sizeof(int)<<1)+~0u))<<2;
return (x|0u)<<nbit | (x|0u)>>((sizeof(int)<<3)+1u+~nbit);
}
Without the additional restrictions, the typical rotate_left operation (by 0 < n < 32) is trivial.
uint32_t X = (x << 4*n) | (x >> 4*(8-n));
Since we are talking about rotations, n < 0 is not a problem. Rotation right by 1 is the same as rotation left by 7 units. Ie. nn=n & 7; and we are through.
int nn = (n & 7) << 2; // Remove the multiplication
uint32_t X = (x << nn) | (x >> (32-nn));
When nn == 0, x would be shifted by 32, which is undefined. This can be replaced simply with x >> 0, i.e. no rotation at all. (x << 0) | (x >> 0) == x.
Replacing the subtraction with addition: a - b = a + (~b+1) and simplifying:
int nn = (n & 7) << 2;
int mm = (33 + ~nn) & 31;
uint32_t X = (x << nn) | (x >> mm); // when nn=0, also mm=0
Now the only problem is in shifting a signed int x right, which would duplicate the sign bit. That should be cured by a mask: (x << nn) - 1
int nn = (n & 7) << 2;
int mm = (33 + ~nn) & 31;
int result = (x << nn) | ((x >> mm) & ((1 << nn) + ~0));
At this point we have used just 12 of the allowed operations -- next we can start to dig into the problem of sizeof(int)...
int nn = (n & (sizeof(int)-1)) << 2; // etc.
One of the few programming assignments I had due was dealing with bit level operators and I was hoping I did this correctly.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){
int x;
printf("Enter an x: ");
scanf("%x", &x);
printf("X = %d\n", x);
// Any bit in x is 1
x && printf("A bit in x is 1!\n");
// Any bit in x is 0
~x && printf("A bit in x is 0!\n");
// Least significant byte of x has a bit of 1
(x & 0xFF) && printf("A bit in least significant byte of x is 1!\n");
// Most significant byte of x has a bit of 0
int most = (x & ~(0xFF<<(sizeof(int)-1<<3)));
most && printf("A bit in the most significant byte of x is 0!\n");
return 0;
}
The assignment restricted what we could use so there could be no loops or conditionals and many other restrictions. I get a bit confused with the bit level operators so I was just hoping if there are any errors I could fix it and learn why it was wrong. Thanks.
You shouldn't use signed integers for these operations, because some cases result in undefined / implementation-defined behaviour: Arithmetic bit-shift on a signed integer
int most = (x & ~(0xFF<<(sizeof(int)-1<<3)));
You should negate x, not the right hand side:
int most = (~x & (0xFF<<(sizeof(int)-1<<3)));
Suppose you have 2 numbers:
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
Using bitwise operators, how can i represent x-y?
When comparing the bits of two numbers A and B there are three posibilities. The following assumes unsigned numbers.
A == B : All of the bits are the same
A > B: The most significant bit that differs between the two numbers is set in A and not in B
A < B: The most significant bit that differs between the two numbers is set in B and not in A
Code might look like the following
int getDifType(uint32_t A, uint32_t B)
{
uint32_t bitMask = 0x8000000;
// From MSB to LSB
for (bitMask = 0x80000000; 0 != bitMask; bitMask >>= 1)
{
if (A & bitMask != B & bitMask)
return (A & bitMask) - (B & bitMask);
}
// No difference found
return 0;
}
You need to read about two's complement arithmetic. Addition, subtraction, negation, sign testing, and everything else are all done by the hardware using bitwise operations, so you can definitely do it in your C program. The wikipedia link above should teach you everything you need to know to solve your problem.
Your first step will be to implement addition using only bitwise operators. After that, everything should be easy. Start small- what do you have to do to implement 00 + 00, 01 + 01, etc? Go from there.
You need to start checking from the most significant end to find if a number is greater or not. This logic will work only for non-negative integers.
int x,y;
//get x & y
unsigned int mask=1; // make the mask 000..0001
mask=mask<<(8*sizeoF(int)-1); // make the mask 1000..000
while(mask!=0)
{
if(x & mask > y & mask)
{printf("x greater");break;}
else if(y & mask > x & mask)
{printf("y greater");break;}
mask=mask>>1; // shift 1 in mask to the right
}
Compare the bits from left to right, looking for the leftmost bits that differ. Assuming a machine that is two's complement, the topmost bit determines the sign and will have a flipped comparison sense versus the other bits. This should work on any two's complement machine:
int compare(int x, int y) {
unsigned int mask = ~0U - (~0U >> 1); // select left-most bit
if (x & mask && ~y & mask)
return -1; // x < 0 and y >= 0, therefore y > x
else if (~x & mask && y & mask)
return 1; // x >= 0 and y < 0, therefore x > y
for (; mask; mask >>= 1) {
if (x & mask && ~y & mask)
return 1;
else if (~x & mask && y & mask)
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
[Note that this technically isn't portable. C makes no guarantees that signed arithmetic will be two's complement. But you'll be hard pressed to find a C implementation on a modern machine that behaves differently.]
To see why this works, consider first comparing two unsigned numbers, 13d = 1101b and 11d = 1011b. (I'm assuming a 4-bit wordsize for brevity.) The leftmost differing bit is the second from the left, which the former has set, while the other does not. The former number is therefore the larger. It should be fairly clear that this principle holds for all unsigned numbers.
Now, consider two's complement numbers. You negate a number by complementing the bits and adding one. Thus, -1d = 1111b, -2d = 1110b, -3d = 1101b, -4d = 1100b, etc. You can see that two negative numbers can be compared as though they were unsigned. Likewise, two non-negative numbers can also be compared as though unsigned. Only when the signs differ do we have to consider them -- but if they differ, the comparison is trivial!