How to interleave 2 booleans using bitwise operators? - c

Suppose I have two 4-bit values, ABCD and abcd. How to interleave it, so it becomes AaBbCcDd, using bitwise operators? Example in pseudo-C:
nibble a = 0b1001;
nibble b = 0b1100;
char c = foo(a,b);
print_bits(c);
// output: 0b11010010
Note: 4 bits is just for illustration, I want to do this with two 32bit ints.

This is called the perfect shuffle operation, and it's discussed at length in the Bible Of Bit Bashing, Hacker's Delight by Henry Warren, section 7-2 "Shuffling Bits."
Assuming x is a 32-bit integer with a in its high-order 16 bits and b in its low-order 16 bits:
unsigned int x = (a << 16) | b; /* put a and b in place */
the following straightforward C-like code accomplishes the perfect shuffle:
x = (x & 0x0000FF00) << 8 | (x >> 8) & 0x0000FF00 | x & 0xFF0000FF;
x = (x & 0x00F000F0) << 4 | (x >> 4) & 0x00F000F0 | x & 0xF00FF00F;
x = (x & 0x0C0C0C0C) << 2 | (x >> 2) & 0x0C0C0C0C | x & 0xC3C3C3C3;
x = (x & 0x22222222) << 1 | (x >> 1) & 0x22222222 | x & 0x99999999;
He also gives an alternative form which is faster on some CPUs, and (I think) a little more clear and extensible:
unsigned int t; /* an intermediate, temporary variable */
t = (x ^ (x >> 8)) & 0x0000FF00; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 8);
t = (x ^ (x >> 4)) & 0x00F000F0; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 4);
t = (x ^ (x >> 2)) & 0x0C0C0C0C; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 2);
t = (x ^ (x >> 1)) & 0x22222222; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 1);
I see you have edited your question to ask for a 64-bit result from two 32-bit inputs. I'd have to think about how to extend Warren's technique. I think it wouldn't be too hard, but I'd have to give it some thought. If someone else wanted to start here and give a 64-bit version, I'd be happy to upvote them.
EDITED FOR 64 BITS
I extended the second solution to 64 bits in a straightforward way. First I doubled the length of each of the constants. Then I added a line at the beginning to swap adjacent double-bytes and intermix them. In the following 4 lines, which are pretty much the same as the 32-bit version, the first line swaps adjacent bytes and intermixes, the second line drops down to nibbles, the third line to double-bits, and the last line to single bits.
unsigned long long int t; /* an intermediate, temporary variable */
t = (x ^ (x >> 16)) & 0x00000000FFFF0000ull; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 16);
t = (x ^ (x >> 8)) & 0x0000FF000000FF00ull; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 8);
t = (x ^ (x >> 4)) & 0x00F000F000F000F0ull; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 4);
t = (x ^ (x >> 2)) & 0x0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0Cull; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 2);
t = (x ^ (x >> 1)) & 0x2222222222222222ull; x = x ^ t ^ (t << 1);

From Stanford "Bit Twiddling Hacks" page:
https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#InterleaveTableObvious
uint32_t x = /*...*/, y = /*...*/;
uint64_t z = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(x) * CHAR_BIT; i++) // unroll for more speed...
{
z |= (x & 1U << i) << i | (y & 1U << i) << (i + 1);
}
Look at the page they propose different and faster algorithms to achieve the same.

Like so:
#include <limits.h>
typedef unsigned int half;
typedef unsigned long long full;
full mix_bits(half a,half b)
{
full result = 0;
for (int i=0; i<sizeof(half)*CHAR_BIT; i++)
result |= (((a>>i)&1)<<(2*i+1))|(((b>>i)&1)<<(2*i+0));
return result;
}

Here is a loop-based solution that is hopefully more readable than some of the others already here.
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
uint64_t interleave(uint32_t a, uint32_t b) {
uint64_t result = 0;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 31; i++) {
result |= (a >> (31 - i)) & 1;
result <<= 1;
result |= (b >> (31 - i)) & 1;
result <<= 1;
}
// Skip the last left shift.
result |= (a >> (31 - i)) & 1;
result <<= 1;
result |= (b >> (31 - i)) & 1;
return result;
}
void printBits(uint64_t a) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
printf("%lu", (a >> (63 - i)) & 1);
puts("");
}
int main(){
uint32_t a = 0x9;
uint32_t b = 0x6;
uint64_t c = interleave(a,b);
printBits(a);
printBits(b);
printBits(c);
}

I have used the 2 tricks/operations used in this post How do you set, clear, and toggle a single bit? of setting a bit at particular index and checking the bit at particular index.
The following code is implemented using these 2 operations only.
int a = 0b1001;
int b = 0b1100;
long int c=0;
int index; //To specify index of c
int bit,i;
//Set bits in c from right to left.
for(i=32;i>=0;i--)
{
index=2*i+1; //We have to add the bit in c at this index
//Check a
bit=a&(1<<i); //Checking whether the i-th bit is set in a
if(bit)
c|=1<<index; //Setting bit in c at index
index--;
//Check b
bit=b&(1<<i); //Checking whether the i-th bit is set in b
if(bit)
c|=1<<index; //Setting bit in c at index
}
printf("%ld",c);
Output: 210 which is 0b11010010

Related

count number of ones in a given integer using only << >> + | & ^ ~ ! = [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Count the number of set bits in a 32-bit integer
(65 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
How to write a C program using only << >> + | & ^ ~ ! =
That counts the number of ones in a given integer?
Have a look at the Bit Twiddling hacks from Stanford. Here are some choices for your problem:
The naïve Approach
unsigned int v; // count the number of bits set in v
unsigned int c; // c accumulates the total bits set in v
for (c = 0; v; v >>= 1)
{
c += v & 1;
}
With a Lookup Table
static const unsigned char BitsSetTable256[256] =
{
# define B2(n) n, n+1, n+1, n+2
# define B4(n) B2(n), B2(n+1), B2(n+1), B2(n+2)
# define B6(n) B4(n), B4(n+1), B4(n+1), B4(n+2)
B6(0), B6(1), B6(1), B6(2)
};
unsigned int v; // count the number of bits set in 32-bit value v
unsigned int c; // c is the total bits set in v
// Option 1:
c = BitsSetTable256[v & 0xff] +
BitsSetTable256[(v >> 8) & 0xff] +
BitsSetTable256[(v >> 16) & 0xff] +
BitsSetTable256[v >> 24];
// Option 2:
unsigned char * p = (unsigned char *) &v;
c = BitsSetTable256[p[0]] +
BitsSetTable256[p[1]] +
BitsSetTable256[p[2]] +
BitsSetTable256[p[3]];
// To initially generate the table algorithmically:
BitsSetTable256[0] = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 256; i++)
{
BitsSetTable256[i] = (i & 1) + BitsSetTable256[i / 2];
}
Brian W. Kernighan's Approach
unsigned int v; // count the number of bits set in v
unsigned int c; // c accumulates the total bits set in v
for (c = 0; v; c++)
{
v &= v - 1; // clear the least significant bit set
}
There are some more algorithms, read the linked page for details.
It is impossible to do this using only << >> + | & ^ ~ ! =. You need some other punctuation such as {, }, (, ) and ;, and you need some letters too.
Here is a solution without digits:
int bc(unsigned int n){int c=!&n;while(n){c++;n&=n+~!&n;}return c;}
It uses only the operators mentioned, but only works on 2's complement architectures.
If you cannot use if, for nor while statements, the parallel sum works this way:
int bitcount32(unsigned int x) {
x = ((x >> 1) & 0x55555555) + (x & 0x55555555);
x = ((x >> 2) & 0x33333333) + (x & 0x33333333);
x = ((x >> 4) & 0x0f0f0f0f) + (x & 0x0f0f0f0f);
x = ((x >> 8) & 0x00ff00ff) + (x & 0x00ff00ff);
return (x >> 16) + (x & 0x0000ffff);
}
This function works for 32 bit ints, but can be modified to handle 16 or 64 bit ints. There are more compact solutions and possibly more efficient ones depending on your actual CPU performance here: How to count the number of set bits in a 32-bit integer?

Computing the floor of log₂(x) using only bitwise operators in C

For homework, using C, I'm supposed to make a program that finds the log base 2 of a number greater than 0 using only the operators ! ~ & ^ | + << >>. I know that I'm supposed to shift right a number of times, but I don't know how to keep track of the number of times without having any loops or ifs. I've been stuck on this question for days, so any help is appreciated.
int ilog2(int x) {
x = x | (x >> 1);
x = x | (x >> 2);
x = x | (x >> 4);
x = x | (x >> 8);
x = x | (x >> 16);
}
This is what I have so far. I pass the most significant bit to the end.
Assumes a 32-bit unsigned int :
unsigned int ulog2 (unsigned int u)
{
unsigned int s, t;
t = (u > 0xffff) << 4; u >>= t;
s = (u > 0xff ) << 3; u >>= s, t |= s;
s = (u > 0xf ) << 2; u >>= s, t |= s;
s = (u > 0x3 ) << 1; u >>= s, t |= s;
return (t | (u >> 1));
}
Since I assumed >, I thought I'd find a way to get rid of it.
(u > 0xffff) is equivalent to: ((u >> 16) != 0). If subtract borrows:
((u >> 16) - 1) will set the msb, iff (u <= 0xffff). Replace -1 with +(~0) (allowed).
So the condition: (u > 0xffff) is replaced with: (~((u >> 16) + ~0U)) >> 31
unsigned int ulog2 (unsigned int u)
{
unsigned int r = 0, t;
t = ((~((u >> 16) + ~0U)) >> 27) & 0x10;
r |= t, u >>= t;
t = ((~((u >> 8) + ~0U)) >> 28) & 0x8;
r |= t, u >>= t;
t = ((~((u >> 4) + ~0U)) >> 29) & 0x4;
r |= t, u >>= t;
t = ((~((u >> 2) + ~0U)) >> 30) & 0x2;
r |= t, u >>= t;
return (r | (u >> 1));
}
This gets the floor of logbase2 of a number.
int ilog2(int x) {
int i, j, k, l, m;
x = x | (x >> 1);
x = x | (x >> 2);
x = x | (x >> 4);
x = x | (x >> 8);
x = x | (x >> 16);
// i = 0x55555555
i = 0x55 | (0x55 << 8);
i = i | (i << 16);
// j = 0x33333333
j = 0x33 | (0x33 << 8);
j = j | (j << 16);
// k = 0x0f0f0f0f
k = 0x0f | (0x0f << 8);
k = k | (k << 16);
// l = 0x00ff00ff
l = 0xff | (0xff << 16);
// m = 0x0000ffff
m = 0xff | (0xff << 8);
x = (x & i) + ((x >> 1) & i);
x = (x & j) + ((x >> 2) & j);
x = (x & k) + ((x >> 4) & k);
x = (x & l) + ((x >> 8) & l);
x = (x & m) + ((x >> 16) & m);
x = x + ~0;
return x;
}
Your result is simply the rank of the highest non-null bit.
int log2_floor (int x)
{
int res = -1;
while (x) { res++ ; x = x >> 1; }
return res;
}
One possible solution is to take this method:
It is based on the additivity of logarithms:
log2(2nx) = log2(x) + n
Let x0 be a number of 2n bits (for instance, n=16 for 32 bits).
if x0 > 2n, we can define x1 so that
x0 = 2nx1
and we can say that
E(log2(x0)) = n + E(log2(x1))
We can compute
x1
with a binary shift:
x1 = x0 >> n
Otherwise we can simply set X1 = X0
We are now facing the same problem with the remaining upper or lower half of x0
By splitting x in half at each step, we can eventually compute E(log2(x)):
int log2_floor (unsigned x)
{
#define MSB_HIGHER_THAN(n) (x &(~((1<<n)-1)))
int res = 0;
if MSB_HIGHER_THAN(16) {res+= 16; $x >>= 16;}
if MSB_HIGHER_THAN( 8) {res+= 8; $x >>= 8;}
if MSB_HIGHER_THAN( 4) {res+= 4; $x >>= 4;}
if MSB_HIGHER_THAN( 2) {res+= 2; $x >>= 2;}
if MSB_HIGHER_THAN( 1) {res+= 1;}
return res;
}
Since your sadistic teacher said you can't use loops, we can hack our way around by computing a value that will be n in case of positive test and 0 otherwise, thus having no effect on addition or shift:
#define N_IF_MSB_HIGHER_THAN_N_OR_ELSE_0(n) (((-(x>>n))>>n)&n)
If the - operator is also forbidden by your psychopatic teacher (which is stupid since processors are able to handle 2's complements just as well as bitwise operations), you can use -x = ~x+1 in the above formula
#define N_IF_MSB_HIGHER_THAN_N_OR_ELSE_0_WITH_NO_MINUS(n) (((~(x>>n)+1)>>n)&n)
that we will shorten to NIMHTNOE0WNM for readability.
Also we will use | instead of + since we know they will be no carry.
Here the example is for 32 bits integers, but you could make it work on 64, 128, 256, 512 or 1024 bits integers if you managed to find a language that supports that big an integer value.
int log2_floor (unsigned x)
{
#define NIMHTNOE0WNM(n) (((~(x>>n)+1)>>n)&n)
int res, n;
n = NIMHTNOE0WNM(16); res = n; x >>= n;
n = NIMHTNOE0WNM( 8); res |= n; x >>= n;
n = NIMHTNOE0WNM( 4); res |= n; x >>= n;
n = NIMHTNOE0WNM( 2); res |= n; x >>= n;
n = NIMHTNOE0WNM( 1); res |= n;
return res;
}
Ah, but maybe you were forbidden to use #define too?
In that case, I cannot do much more for you, except advise you to flog your teacher to death with an old edition of the K&R.
This leads to useless, obfuscated code that gives off a strong smell of unwashed 70's hackers.
Most if not all processors implement specific "count leading zeroes" instructions (for instance, clz on ARM, bsr on x86 or cntlz on PowerPC) that can do the trick without all this fuss .
If you're allowed to use & then can you use &&? With that you can do conditionals without the need of if
if (cond)
doSomething();
can be done with
cond && doSomething();
Otherwise if you want to assign value conditionally like value = cond ? a : b; then you may do it with &
mask = -(cond != 0); // assuming int is a 2's complement 32-bit type
// or mask = (cond != 0) << 31) >> 31;
value = (mask & a) | (~mask & b);
There are many other ways in the bithacks page:
int v; // 32-bit integer to find the log base 2 of
int r; // result of log_2(v) goes here
union { unsigned int u[2]; double d; } t; // temp
t.u[__FLOAT_WORD_ORDER==LITTLE_ENDIAN] = 0x43300000;
t.u[__FLOAT_WORD_ORDER!=LITTLE_ENDIAN] = v;
t.d -= 4503599627370496.0;
r = (t.u[__FLOAT_WORD_ORDER==LITTLE_ENDIAN] >> 20) - 0x3FF;
or
unsigned int v; // 32-bit value to find the log2 of
register unsigned int r; // result of log2(v) will go here
register unsigned int shift;
r = (v > 0xFFFF) << 4; v >>= r;
shift = (v > 0xFF ) << 3; v >>= shift; r |= shift;
shift = (v > 0xF ) << 2; v >>= shift; r |= shift;
shift = (v > 0x3 ) << 1; v >>= shift; r |= shift;
r |= (v >> 1);
another way
uint32_t v; // find the log base 2 of 32-bit v
int r; // result goes here
static const int MultiplyDeBruijnBitPosition[32] =
{
0, 9, 1, 10, 13, 21, 2, 29, 11, 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, 3, 30,
8, 12, 20, 28, 15, 17, 24, 7, 19, 27, 23, 6, 26, 5, 4, 31
};
v |= v >> 1; // first round down to one less than a power of 2
v |= v >> 2;
v |= v >> 4;
v |= v >> 8;
v |= v >> 16;
r = MultiplyDeBruijnBitPosition[(uint32_t)(v * 0x07C4ACDDU) >> 27];
The question is equal to "find the highest bit of 1 of the binary number"
STEP 1: set the left of 1 all to 1
like 0x07000000 to 0x07ffffff
x = x | (x >> 1);
x = x | (x >> 2);
x = x | (x >> 4);
x = x | (x >> 8);
x = x | (x >> 16); // number of ops = 10
STEP 2: returns count of number of 1's in word and minus 1
Reference: Hamming weight
// use bitCount
int m1 = 0x55; // 01010101...
m1 = (m1 << 8) + 0x55;
m1 = (m1 << 8) + 0x55;
m1 = (m1 << 8) + 0x55;
int m2 = 0x33; // 00110011...
m2 = (m2 << 8) + 0x33;
m2 = (m2 << 8) + 0x33;
m2 = (m2 << 8) + 0x33;
int m3 = 0x0f; // 00001111...
m3 = (m3 << 8) + 0x0f;
m3 = (m3 << 8) + 0x0f;
m3 = (m3 << 8) + 0x0f;
x = x + (~((x>>1) & m1) + 1); // x - ((x>>1) & m1)
x = (x & m2) + ((x >> 2) & m2);
x = (x + (x >> 4)) & m3;
// x = (x & m3) + ((x >> 4) & m3);
x += x>>8;
x += x>>16;
int bitCount = x & 0x3f; // max 100,000(2) = 32(10)
// Number of ops: 35 + 10 = 45
return bitCount + ~0;
This is how I do. Thank you~
I also was assigned this problem for homework and I spent a significant amount of time thinking about it so I thought I'd share what I came up with. This works with integers on a 32 bit machine. !!x returns if x is zero or one.
int ilog2(int x) {
int byte_count = 0;
int y = 0;
//Shift right 8
y = x>>0x8;
byte_count += ((!!y)<<3);
//Shift right 16
y = x>>0x10;
byte_count += ((!!y)<<3);
//Shift right 24 and mask to adjust for arithmetic shift
y = (x>>0x18)&0xff;
byte_count += ((!!y)<<3);
x = (x>>byte_count) & 0xff;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1;
byte_count += !!x;
x = x>>1; //8
byte_count += !!x;
return byte_count;
}

retrieve byte from 32 bit integer using bitwise operators

Here is the problem and what I currently have, I just don't understand how it is wrong...
getByte - Extract byte n from word x Bytes numbered from 0 (LSB) to
3 (MSB) Examples: getByte(0x12345678,1) = 0x56 Legal ops: ! ~ &
^ | + << >> Max ops: 6 Rating: 2
int getByte(int x, int n) {
return ((x << (24 - 8 * n)) >> (8 * n));
}
Your shifting doesn't make any sense - first, you shift left by (24 - 8n) bits, then you shift back right by 8n bits. Why? Also, it's wrong. If n is 0, you shift x left by 24 bits and return that value. Try pen and paper to see that this is entirely wrong.
The correct approach would be to do:
int getByte(int x, int n) {
return (x >> 8*n) & 0xFF;
}
Unless i am totally mistaken, your code is mathematically incorrect.
getByte(0x000000ff, 0) {
24 - 8 * n = 24;
8 * n = 0;
0x000000ff << 24 = 0xff000000;
0xff000000 >> 0 = 0xff000000;
return 0xff000000; // should return 0xff
}
Not being allowed to use operators - and especially * is a problem (can't do * 8). I came up with this:
uint8_t getByte (uint32_t x, int n) {
switch (n) {
case 0:
return x & 0xff;
case 1:
return (x >> 8) & 0xff;
case 2:
return (x >> 16) & 0xff;
case 3:
return x >> 24;
}
}
Not exactly beautiful, but it conforms to the problem description: 6 operators, all of them legal.
EDIT: Just had a (pretty obvious) idea for how to avoid * 8
uint8_t getByte (uint32_t x, int n) {
return (x >> (n << 3)) & 0xff;
}
I don't understand how your function works. Try this instead:
int getByte(int x, int n)
{
return (x >> (8 * n)) & 0xFF;
}

How To Find The Leading Number Of Zero's In a Number using C

for example,if i have number 64,then its binary representation would be 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000 so leading number of zero's is 25.
remember i have to calculate this in O(1) time.
please tell me the right way to do that.even if your complexity is >O(1) please do post your answer. thanx
I just found this problem at the top of the search results and this code:
int pop(unsigned x) {
unsigned n;
n = (x >> 1) & 033333333333;
x = x - n;
n = (n >> 1) & 033333333333;
x = x - n;
x = (x + (x >> 3)) & 030707070707;
return x % 63;
}
int nlz(unsigned x) {
x = x | (x >> 1);
x = x | (x >> 2);
x = x | (x >> 4);
x = x | (x >> 8);
x = x | (x >>16);
return pop(~x);
}
where pop counts 1 bits, is several times faster than the first (upvoted) answer.
I didn't notice, question was about 64 bits numbers, so here:
int nlz(unsigned long x) {
unsigned long y;
long n, c;
n = 64;
c = 32;
do {
y = x >> c;
if (y != 0) {
n = n - c;
x = y;
}
c = c >> 1;
} while (c != 0);
return n - x;
}
is a 64 bits algorithm, again several times faster than the mentioned above.
See here for the 32-bit version and other great bit-twiddling hacks.
// this is like doing a sign-extension
// if original value was 0x00.01yyy..y
// then afterwards will be 0x00.01111111
x |= (x >> 1);
x |= (x >> 2);
x |= (x >> 4);
x |= (x >> 8);
x |= (x >> 16);
x |= (x >> 32);
and after that you just need to return 64 - numOnes(x).
A simple way to do that is numOnes32(x) + numOnes32(x >> 32) where numOnes32 is defined as:
int numOnes32(unsigned int x) {
x -= ((x >> 1) & 0x55555555);
x = (((x >> 2) & 0x33333333) + (x & 0x33333333));
x = (((x >> 4) + x) & 0x0f0f0f0f);
x += (x >> 8);
x += (x >> 16);
return(x & 0x0000003f);
}
I haven't tried out this code, but this should do numOnes64 directly (in less time):
int numOnes64(unsigned long int x) {
x = ((x >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555L) + (x & 0x5555555555555555L);
x = ((x >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333L) + (x & 0x3333333333333333L);
// collapse:
unsigned int v = (unsigned int) ((x >>> 32) + x);
v = ((v >> 4) + v) & 0x0f0f0f0f) + (v & 0x0f0f0f0f);
v = ((v >> 8) & 0x00ff00ff) + (v & 0x00ff00ff);
return ((v >> 16) & 0x0000ffff) + (v & 0x0000ffff);
}
Right shift is your friend.
int input = 64;
int sample = ( input < 0 ) ? 0 : input;
int leadingZeros = ( input < 0 ) ? 0 : 32;
while(sample) {
sample >>= 1;
--leadingZeros;
}
printf("Input = %d, leading zeroes = %d\n",input, leadingZeros);
I would go with:
unsigned long clz(unsigned long n) {
unsigned long result = 0;
unsigned long mask = 0;
mask = ~mask;
auto size = sizeof(n) * 8;
auto shift = size / 2;
mask >>= shift;
while (shift >= 1) {
if (n <= mask) {
result += shift;
n <<= shift;
}
shift /= 2;
mask <<= shift;
}
return result;
}
Because the logarithm base 2 roughly represents the number of bits required to represent a number, it might be useful in the answer:
irb(main):012:0> 31 - (Math::log(64) / Math::log(2)).floor()
=> 25
irb(main):013:0> 31 - (Math::log(65) / Math::log(2)).floor()
=> 25
irb(main):014:0> 31 - (Math::log(127) / Math::log(2)).floor()
=> 25
irb(main):015:0> 31 - (Math::log(128) / Math::log(2)).floor()
=> 24
Of course, one downside to using log(3) is that it is a floating-point routine; there are probably some supremely clever bit-tricks to find the number of leading zero bits in integers, but I can't think of one off the top of my head...
Using floating points is not the right answer....
Here is an algo that I use to count the TRAILING 0... change it for Leading...
This algo is in O(1) (will always execute in ~ the same time, or even the same time on some CPU).
int clz(unsigned int i)
{
int zeros;
if ((i&0xffff)==0) zeros= 16, i>>= 16; else zeroes= 0;
if ((i&0xff)==0) zeros+= 8, i>>= 8;
if ((i&0xf)==0) zeros+= 4, i>>= 4;
if ((i&0x3)==0) zeros+= 2, i>>= 2;
if ((i&0x1)==0) zeros+= 1, i>>= 1;
return zeroes+i;
}

reverse the bits using bit field in c language?

how to reverse the bits using bit wise operators in c language
Eg:
i/p: 10010101
o/p: 10101001
If it's just 8 bits:
u_char in = 0x95;
u_char out = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 8; ++i) {
out <<= 1;
out |= (in & 0x01);
in >>= 1;
}
Or for bonus points:
u_char in = 0x95;
u_char out = in;
out = (out & 0xaa) >> 1 | (out & 0x55) << 1;
out = (out & 0xcc) >> 2 | (out & 0x33) << 2;
out = (out & 0xf0) >> 4 | (out & 0x0f) << 4;
figuring out how the last one works is an exercise for the reader ;-)
Knuth has a section on Bit reversal in The Art of Computer Programming Vol 4A, bitwise tricks and techniques.
To reverse the bits of a 32 bit number in a divide and conquer fashion he uses magic constants
u0= 1010101010101010, (from -1/(2+1)
u1= 0011001100110011, (from -1/(4+1)
u2= 0000111100001111, (from -1/(16+1)
u3= 0000000011111111, (from -1/(256+1)
Method credited to Henry Warren Jr., Hackers delight.
unsigned int u0 = 0x55555555;
x = (((x >> 1) & u0) | ((x & u0) << 1));
unsigned int u1 = 0x33333333;
x = (((x >> 2) & u1) | ((x & u1) << 2));
unsigned int u2 = 0x0f0f0f0f;
x = (((x >> 4) & u2) | ((x & u2) << 4));
unsigned int u3 = 0x00ff00ff;
x = (((x >> 8) & u3) | ((x & u3) << 8));
x = ((x >> 16) | (x << 16) mod 0x100000000); // reversed
The 16 and 8 bit cases are left as an exercise to the reader.
Well, this might not be the most elegant solution but it is a solution:
int reverseBits(int x) {
int res = 0;
int len = sizeof(x) * 8; // no of bits to reverse
int i, shift, mask;
for(i = 0; i < len; i++) {
mask = 1 << i; //which bit we are at
shift = len - 2*i - 1;
mask &= x;
mask = (shift > 0) ? mask << shift : mask >> -shift;
res |= mask; // mask the bit we work at at shift it to the left
}
return res;
}
Tested it on a sheet of paper and it seemed to work :D
Edit: Yeah, this is indeed very complicated. I dunno why, but I wanted to find a solution without touching the input, so this came to my haead

Resources