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.
Related
I'm working on exercise 2-8 in K&R which asks us to write function rightrot(int x, int n) such that all bits of x are shifted n times to the right with the bits that fall off the right-end reappearing on the left-end.
Here is my attempted solution in which I shift each bit one-by-one:
int rightrot(int x, int n)
{
int i, rmb;
for(i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
// get right-most bit
rmb = x & 1;
// shift 1 to right
x = x >> 1;
// if right-most bit is set, set left-most bit
if (rmb == 1)
x = x | (~0 ^ (~0 >> 1) );
}
return x;
}
When I execute rightrot(122, 2), I expect to get 94 since 122 is 1111010 and 94 is 1011110. Instead, I get 30 which happens to be 0011110. Clearly, my method for setting the left-most bit is not working as I expect it to. Does anyone spot an obvious error? I'm just learning about capturing bits and the like.
NOTE: I got the technique for setting the left-most bit from this post.
Let's analyse (~0 ^ (~0 >> 1) ):
~0 is -1
~0 >> 1 is again -1, if the sign bit is 1 rightshift will fill the new bits with 1s.
-1 ^ -1 is 0.
x = x | 0 is x.
The solution is that you should use unsigned datatypes if you want to do bitoperations.
So you should use the line x = x | (~0u ^ (~0u >> 1) );
To avoid other problems the parameter x should also be unsigned int.
https://ideone.com/7zPTQk
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'm writing a simple code in C (only using bit-wise operators) that takes a pointer to an unsigned integer x and flips the bit at the nth position n in the binary notation of the integer. The function is declared as follows:
int flip_bit (unsigned * x, unsigned n);
It is assumed that n is between 0 and 31.
In one of the steps, I perform a shift-right operation, but the results are not what I expect. For instance, if I do 0x8000000 >> 30, I get 0xfffffffe as a result, which are 1000 0000 ... 0000 and 1111 1111 ... 1110, respectively, in binary notation. (The expected result is0000 0000 ... 0010).
I am unsure of how or where I am making the mistake. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Edit 1: Below is the code.
#include <stdio.h>
#define INTSIZE 31
void flip_bit(unsigned * x,
unsigned n) {
int a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, p, q;
// save bits on the left of n and insert a zero at the end
a = * x >> n + 1;
b = a << 1;
// save bits on the right of n
c = * x << INTSIZE - (n - 1);
d = c >> INTSIZE - (n - 1);
// shift the bits to the left (back in their positions)
// combine all bits
e = d << n;
f = b | e;
// Isolating the nth bit in its position
g = * x >> n;
h = g << INTSIZE;
// THIS LINE BELOW IS THE ONE CAUSING TROUBLE.
i = h >> INTSIZE - n;
// flipping all bits and removing the 1s surrounding
// the nth bit (0 or 1)
j = ~i;
k = j >> n;
l = k << INTSIZE;
p = l >> INTSIZE - n;
// combining the value missing nth bit and
// the one with the flipped one
q = f | p;
* x = q;
}
I'm getting the unusual behavior when I run flip_bit(0x0000004e,0). The line for the shift-right operation in question has comments in uppercase above it.
There is probably a shorter way to do this (without using a thousand variables), but that's what I have now.
Edit 2: The problem was that I declared the variables as int (instead of unsigned). Nevertheless, that's a terrible way to solve the question. #old_timer suggested returning *x ^ (1u << n), which is much better.
The issue here is that you're performing a right shift on a signed int.
From section 6.5.7 of the C standard:
5 The result of E1 >> E2 is 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.
The bold part is what's happening in your case. Each of your intermediate variables are of type int. Assuming your system uses 2's complement representations for negative numbers, any int value with the high bit set is interpreted as a negative value.
The most common implementation-defined behavior behavior you'll see (and this in fact what gcc and MSVC both do) in this case is that if the high bit is set on a signed value then a 1 will be shifted in on a right shift. This preserves the sign of the value and makes x >> n equivalent to x / 2n for all signed and unsigned values.
You can fix this by changing all of your intermediate variables to unsigned. That way, they match the type of *x and you won't get 1s pushed on to the left.
As for your method of flipping a bit, there is a much simpler way of doing so. You can instead use the ^ operator, which is the bitwise exclusive OR operator.
From section 6.5.11 of the C standard:
4 The result of the ^ operator is the bitwise exclusive OR (XOR) of the
operands (that is, each bit in the result is set if and only if
exactly one of the corresponding bits in the converted operands is
set).
For example:
0010 1000
^ 1100 ^ 1101
------ ------
1110 0101
Note that you can use this to create a bitmask, then use that bitmask to flip the bits in the other operand.
So if you want to flip bit n, take the value 1, left shift it by n to move that bit to the desired location then XOR that value with your target value to flip that bit:
void flip_bit(unsigned * x, unsigned n) {
return *x = *x ^ (1u << n);
}
You can also use the ^= operator in this case which XORs the right operand to the left and assigns the result to the left:
return *x ^= (1u << n);
Also note the u suffix on the integer constant. That causes the type of the constant to be unsigned which helps to avoid the implementation defined behavior you experienced.
#include <stdio.h>
int main ( void )
{
unsigned int x;
int y;
x=0x80000000;
x>>=30;
printf("0x%08X\n",x);
y=0x80000000;
y>>=30;
printf("0x%08X\n",y);
return(0);
}
gcc on mint
0x00000002
0xFFFFFFFE
or what about this
#include <stdio.h>
int main ( void )
{
unsigned int x;
x=0x12345678;
x^=1<<30;
printf("0x%08X\n",x);
}
output
0x52345678
I'm working on a way to divide a signed integer by a power of 2 using only binary operators (<< >> + ^ ~ & | !), and the result has to be round toward 0. I came across this question also on Stackoverflow on the problem, however, I cannot understand why it works. Here's the solution:
int divideByPowerOf2(int x, int n)
{
return (x + ((x >> 31) & ((1 << n) + ~0))) >> n;
}
I understand the x >> 31 part (only add the next part if x is negative, because if it's positive x will be automatically round toward 0). But what's bothering me is the (1 << n) + ~0 part. How can it work?
Assuming 2-complement, just bit-shifting the dividend is equivalent to a certain kind of division: not the conventional division where we round the dividend to next multiple of divisor toward zero. But another kind where we round the dividend toward negative infinity. I rediscovered that in Smalltalk, see http://smallissimo.blogspot.fr/2015/03/is-bitshift-equivalent-to-division-in.html.
For example, let's divide -126 by 8. traditionally, we would write
-126 = -15 * 8 - 6
But if we round toward infinity, we get a positive remainder and write it:
-126 = -16 * 8 + 2
The bit-shifting is performing the second operation, in term of bit patterns (assuming 8 bits long int for the sake of being short):
1000|0010 >> 3 = 1111|0000
1000|0010 = 1111|0000 * 0000|1000 + 0000|0010
So what if we want the traditional division with quotient rounded toward zero and remainder of same sign as dividend? Simple, we just have to add 1 to the quotient - if and only if the dividend is negative and the division is inexact.
You saw that x>>31 corresponds to first condition, dividend is negative, assuming int has 32 bits.
The second term corresponds to the second condition, if division is inexact.
See how are encoded -1, -2, -4, ... in two complement: 1111|1111 , 1111|1110 , 1111|1100. So the negation of nth power of two has n trailing zeros.
When the dividend has n trailing zeros and we divide by 2^n, then no need to add 1 to final quotient. In any other case, we need to add 1.
What ((1 << n) + ~0) is doing is creating a mask with n trailing ones.
The n last bits don't really matter, because we are going to shift to the right and just throw them away. So, if the division is exact, the n trailing bits of dividend are zero, and we just add n 1s that will be skipped. On the contrary, if the division is inexact, then one or more of the n trailing bits of the dividend is 1, and we are sure to cause a carry to the n+1 bit position: that's how we add 1 to the quotient (we add 2^n to the dividend). Does that explain it a bit more?
This is "write-only code": instead of trying to understand the code, try to create it by yourself.
For example, let's divide a number by 8 (shift right by 3).
If the number is negative, the normal right-shift rounds in the wrong direction. Let's "fix" it by adding a number:
int divideBy8(int x)
{
if (x >= 0)
return x >> 3;
else
return (x + whatever) >> 3;
}
Here you can come up with a mathematical formula for whatever, or do some trial and error. Anyway, here whatever = 7:
int divideBy8(int x)
{
if (x >= 0)
return x >> 3;
else
return (x + 7) >> 3;
}
How to unify the two cases? You need to make an expression that looks like this:
(x + stuff) >> 3
where stuff is 7 for negative x, and 0 for positive x. The trick here is using x >> 31, which is a 32-bit number whose bits are equal to the sign-bit of x: all 0 or all 1. So stuff is
(x >> 31) & 7
Combining all these, and replacing 8 and 7 by the more general power of 2, you get the code you asked about.
Note: in the description above, I assume that int represents a 32-bit hardware register, and hardware uses two's complement representation to do right shift.
OP's reference is of a C# code and so many subtle differences that cause it to be bad code with C, as this post is tagged.
int is not necessarily 32-bits so using a magic number of 32 does not make for a robust solution.
In particular (1 << n) + ~0 results in implementation defined behavior when n causes a bit to be shifted into the sign place. Not good coding.
Restricting code to only using "binary" operators << >> + ^ ~ & | ! encourages a coder to assume things about int which is not portable nor compliant with the C spec. So OP's posted code does not "work" in general, although may work in many common implementations.
OP code fails when int is not 2's complement, not uses the range [-2147483648 .. 2147483647] or when 1 << n uses implementation behavior that is not as expected.
// weak code
int divideByPowerOf2(int x, int n) {
return (x + ((x >> 31) & ((1 << n) + ~0))) >> n;
}
A simple alternative, assuming long long exceeds the range of int follows. I doubt this meets some corner of OP's goals, but OP's given goals encourages non-robust coding.
int divideByPowerOf2(int x, int n) {
long long ill = x;
if (x < 0) ill = -ill;
while (n--) ill >>= 1;
if (x < 0) ill = -ill;
return (int) ill;
}
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!