I am trying to create a CRC-15 check in c and the output is never correct for each line of the file. I am trying to output the CRC for each line cumulatively next to each line. I use: #define POLYNOMIAL 0xA053 for the divisor and text for the dividend. I need to represent numbers as 32-bit unsigned integers. I have tried printing out the hex values to keep track and flipping different shifts around. However, I just can't seem to figure it out! I have a feeling it has something to do with the way I am padding things. Is there a flaw to my logic?
The CRC is to be represented in four hexadecimal numbers, that sequence will have four leading 0's. For example, it will look like 0000xxxx where the x's are the hexadecimal digits. The polynomial I use is 0xA053.
I thought about using a temp variable and do 4 16 bit chunks of code per line every XOR, however, I'm not quite sure how I could use shifts to accomplish this so I settled for a checksum of the letters on the line and then XORing that to try to calculate the CRC code.
I am testing my code using the following input and padding with . until the string is of length 504 because that is what the pad character needs to be via the requirements given:
"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
The CRC of the first 64 char line ("This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never,) is supposed to be 000015fa and I am getting bfe6ec00.
My logic:
In CRCCalculation I add each character to a 32-bit unsigned integer and after 64 (the length of one line) I send it into the XOR function.
If it the top bit is not 1, I shift the number to the left one
causing 0s to pad the right and loop around again.
If the top bit is 1, I XOR the dividend with the divisor and then shift the dividend to the left one.
After all calculations are done, I return the dividend shifted to the left four ( to add four zeros to the front) to the calculation function
Add result to the running total of the result
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#define POLYNOMIAL 0xA053
void crcCalculation(char *text, int length)
{
int i;
uint32_t dividend = atoi(text);
uint32_t result;
uint32_t sumText = 0;
// Calculate CRC
printf("\nCRC 15 calculation progress:\n");
i = length;
// padding
if(i < 504)
{
for(; i!=504; i++)
{
// printf("i is %d\n", i);
text[i] = '.';
}
}
// Try calculating by first line of crc by summing the values then calcuating, then add in the next line
for (i = 0; i < 504; i++)
{
if(i%64 == 0 && i != 0)
{
result = XOR(POLYNOMIAL, sumText);
printf(" - %x\n",result);
}
sumText +=(uint32_t)text[i];
printf("%c", text[i]);
}
printf("\n\nCRC15 result : %x\n", result);
}
uint32_t XOR(uint32_t divisor, uint32_t dividend)
{
uint32_t divRemainder = dividend;
uint32_t currentBit;
// Note: 4 16 bit chunks
for(currentBit = 32; currentBit > 0; --currentBit)
{
// if topbit is 1
if(divRemainder & 0x80)
{
//divRemainder = (divRemainder << 1) ^ divisor;
divRemainder ^= divisor;
printf("%x %x\n", divRemainder, divisor);
}
// else
// divisor = divisor >> 1;
divRemainder = (divRemainder << 1);
}
//return divRemainder; , have tried shifting to right and left, want to add 4 zeros to front so >>
//return divRemainder >> 4;
return divRemainder >> 4;
}
The first issue I see is the top bit check, it should be:
if(divRemainder & 0x8000)
The question doesn't state if the CRC is bit reflected (xor data into low order bits of CRC, right shift for cycle) or not (xor data into high order bits of CRC, left shift for cycle), so I can't offer help for the rest of the code.
The question doesn't state the initial value of CRC (0x0000 or 0x7fff), or if the CRC is post complemented.
The logic for a conventional CRC is:
xor a byte of data into the CRC (upper or lower bits)
cycle the CRC 8 times (or do a table lookup)
After generating the CRC for an entire message, the CRC can be appended to the message. If a CRC is generated for a message with the appended CRC and there are no errors, the CRC will be zero (or a constant value if the CRC is post complemented).
here is a typical CRC16, extracted from: <www8.cs.umu.se/~isak/snippets/crc-16.c>
#define POLY 0x8408
/*
// 16 12 5
// this is the CCITT CRC 16 polynomial X + X + X + 1.
// This works out to be 0x1021, but the way the algorithm works
// lets us use 0x8408 (the reverse of the bit pattern). The high
// bit is always assumed to be set, thus we only use 16 bits to
// represent the 17 bit value.
*/
unsigned short crc16(char *data_p, unsigned short length)
{
unsigned char i;
unsigned int data;
unsigned int crc = 0xffff;
if (length == 0)
return (~crc);
do
{
for (i=0, data=(unsigned int)0xff & *data_p++;
i < 8;
i++, data >>= 1)
{
if ((crc & 0x0001) ^ (data & 0x0001))
crc = (crc >> 1) ^ POLY;
else crc >>= 1;
}
} while (--length);
crc = ~crc;
data = crc;
crc = (crc << 8) | (data >> 8 & 0xff);
return (crc);
}
Since you want to calculate a CRC15 rather than a CRC16, the logic will be more complex as cannot work with whole bytes, so there will be a lot of bit shifting and ANDing to extract the desire 15 bits.
Note: the OP did not mention if the initial value of the CRC is 0x0000 or 0x7FFF, nor if the result is to be complemented, nor certain other criteria, so this posted code can only be a guide.
The Problem: Exercise 2-8 of The C Programming Language, "Write a function rightrot(x,n) that returns the value of the integer x, rotated to the right by n positions."
I have done this every way that I know how. Here is the issue that I am having. Take a given number for this exercise, say 29, and rotate it right one position.
11101 and it becomes 11110 or 30. Let's say for the sake of argument that the system we are working on has an unsigned integer type size of 32 bits. Let's further say that we have the number 29 stored in an unsigned integer variable. In memory the number will have 27 zeros ahead of it. So when we rotate 29 right one using one of several algorithms mine is posted below, we get the number 2147483662. This is obviously not the desired result.
unsigned int rightrot(unsigned x, int n) {
return (x >> n) | (x << (sizeof(x) * CHAR_BIT) - n);
}
Technically, this is correct, but I was thinking that the 27 zeros that are in front of 11101 were insignificant. I have also tried a couple of other solutions:
int wordsize(void) { // compute the wordsize on a given machine...
unsigned x = ~0;
int b;
for(b = 0; x; b++)
x &= x-1;
return x;
}
unsigned int rightrot(unsigned x, int n) {
unsigned rbit;
while(n --) {
rbit = x >> 1;
x |= (rbit << wordsize() - 1);
}
return x;
This last and final solution is the one where I thought that I had it, I will explain where it failed once I get to the end. I am sure that you will see my mistake...
int bitcount(unsigned x) {
int b;
for(b = 0; x; b++)
x &= x-1;
return b;
}
unsigned int rightrot(unsigned x, int n) {
unsigned rbit;
int shift = bitcount(x);
while(n--) {
rbit = x & 1;
x >>= 1;
x |= (rbit << shift);
}
}
This solution gives the expected answer of 30 that I was looking for, but if you use a number for x like oh say 31 (11111), then there are issues, specifically the outcome is 47, using one for n. I did not think of this earlier, but if a number like 8 (1000) is used then mayhem. There is only one set bit in 8, so the shift is most certainly going to be wrong. My theory at this point is that the first two solutions are correct (mostly) and I am just missing something...
A bitwise rotation is always necessarily within an integer of a given width. In this case, as you're assuming a 32-bit integer, 2147483662 (0b10000000000000000000000000001110) is indeed the correct answer; you aren't doing anything wrong!
0b11110 would not be considered the correct result by any reasonable definition, as continuing to rotate it right using the same definition would never give you back the original input. (Consider that another right rotation would give 0b1111, and continuing to rotate that would have no effect.)
In my opinion, the spirit of the section of the book which immediately precedes this exercise would have the reader do this problem without knowing anything about the size (in bits) of integers, or any other type. The examples in the section do not require that information; I don't believe the exercises should either.
Regardless of my belief, the book had not yet introduced the sizeof operator by section 2.9, so the only way to figure the size of a type is to count the bits "by hand".
But we don't need to bother with all that. We can do bit rotation in n steps, regardless of how many bits there are in the data type, by rotating one bit at a time.
Using only the parts of the language that are covered by the book up to section 2.9, here's my implementation (with integer parameters, returning an integer, as specified by the exercise): Loop n times, x >> 1 each iteration; if the old low bit of x was 1, set the new high bit.
int rightrot(int x, int n) {
int lowbit;
while (n-- > 0) {
lowbit = x & 1; /* save low bit */
x = (x >> 1) & (~0u >> 1); /* shift right by one, and clear the high bit (in case of sign extension) */
if (lowbit)
x = x | ~(~0u >> 1); /* set the high bit if the low bit was set */
}
return x;
}
You could find the location of the first '1' in the 32-bit value using binary search. Then note the bit in the LSB location, right shift the value by the required number of places, and put the LSB bit in the location of the first '1'.
int bitcount(unsigned x) {
int b;
for(b = 0; x; b++)
x &= x-1;
return b;
}
unsigned rightrot(unsigned x,int n) {
int b = bitcount(x);
unsigned a = (x&~(~0<<n))<<(b-n+1);
x>> = n;
x| = a;
}
How to find number of trailing 0s in a binary number?Based on K&R bitcount example of finding 1s in a binary number i modified it a bit to find the trailing 0s.
int bitcount(unsigned x)
{
int b;
for(b=0;x!=0;x>>=1)
{
if(x&01)
break;
else
b++;
}
I would like to review this method.
Here's a way to compute the count in parallel for better efficiency:
unsigned int v; // 32-bit word input to count zero bits on right
unsigned int c = 32; // c will be the number of zero bits on the right
v &= -signed(v);
if (v) c--;
if (v & 0x0000FFFF) c -= 16;
if (v & 0x00FF00FF) c -= 8;
if (v & 0x0F0F0F0F) c -= 4;
if (v & 0x33333333) c -= 2;
if (v & 0x55555555) c -= 1;
On GCC on X86 platform you can use __builtin_ctz(no)
On Microsoft compilers for X86 you can use _BitScanForward
They both emit a bsf instruction
Another approach (I'm surprised it's not mentioned here) would be to build a table of 256 integers, where each element in the array is the lowest 1 bit for that index. Then, for each byte in the integer, you look up in the table.
Something like this (I haven't taken any time to tweak this, this is just to roughly illustrate the idea):
int bitcount(unsigned x)
{
static const unsigned char table[256] = { /* TODO: populate with constants */ };
for (int i=0; i<sizeof(x); ++i, x >>= 8)
{
unsigned char r = table[x & 0xff];
if (r)
return r + i*8; // Found a 1...
}
// All zeroes...
return sizeof(x)*8;
}
The idea with some of the table-driven approaches to a problem like this is that if statements cost you something in terms of branch prediction, so you should aim to reduce them. It also reduces the number of bit shifts. Your approach does an if statement and a shift per bit, and this one does one per byte. (Hopefully the optimizer can unroll the for loop, and not issue a compare/jump for that.) Some of the other answers have even fewer if statements than this, but a table approach is simple and easy to understand. Of course you should be guided by actual measurements to see if any of this matters.
I think your method is working (allthough you might want to use unsigned int). You check the last digit each time, and if it's zero, you discard it an increment the number of trailing zero-bits.
I think for trailing zeroes you don't need a loop.
Consider the following:
What happens with the number (in binary representation, of course) if you subtract 1? Which digits change, which stay the same?
How could you combine the original number and the decremented version such that only bits representing trailing zeroes are left?
If you apply the above steps correctly, you can just find the highest bit set in O(lg n) steps (look here if you're interested in how to do).
Should be:
int bitcount(unsigned char x)
{
int b;
for(b=0; b<7; x>>=1)
{
if(x&1)
break;
else
b++;
}
return b;
}
or even
int bitcount(unsigned char x)
{
int b;
for(b=0; b<7 && !(x&1); x>>=1) b++;
return b;
}
or even (yay!)
int bitcount(unsigned char x)
{
int b;
for(b=0; b<7 && !(x&1); b++) x>>=1;
return b;
}
or ...
Ah, whatever, there are 100500 millions methods of doing this. Use whatever you need or like.
We can easily get it using bit operations, we don't need to go through all the bits. Pseudo code:
int bitcount(unsigned x) {
int xor = x ^ (x-1); // this will have (1 + #trailing 0s) trailing 1s
return log(i & xor); // i & xor will have only one bit 1 and its log should give the exact number of zeroes
}
int countTrailZero(unsigned x) {
if (x == 0) return DEFAULT_VALUE_YOU_NEED;
return log2 (x & -x);
}
Explanation:
x & -x returns the number of right most bit set with 1.
e.g. 6 -> "0000,0110", (6 & -6) -> "0000,0010"
You can deduct this by two complement:
x = "a1b", where b represents all trailing zeros.
then
-x = !(x) + 1 = !(a1b) + 1 = (!a)0(!b) + 1 = (!a)0(1...1) + 1 = (!a)1(0...0) = (!a)1b
so
x & (-x) = (a1b) & (!a)1b = (0...0)1(0...0)
you can get the number of trailing zeros just by doing log2.
Given an integer typedef:
typedef unsigned int TYPE;
or
typedef unsigned long TYPE;
I have the following code to reverse the bits of an integer:
TYPE max_bit= (TYPE)-1;
void reverse_int_setup()
{
TYPE bits= (TYPE)max_bit;
while (bits <<= 1)
max_bit= bits;
}
TYPE reverse_int(TYPE arg)
{
TYPE bit_setter= 1, bit_tester= max_bit, result= 0;
for (result= 0; bit_tester; bit_tester>>= 1, bit_setter<<= 1)
if (arg & bit_tester)
result|= bit_setter;
return result;
}
One just needs first to run reverse_int_setup(), which stores an integer with the highest bit turned on, then any call to reverse_int(arg) returns arg with its bits reversed (to be used as a key to a binary tree, taken from an increasing counter, but that's more or less irrelevant).
Is there a platform-agnostic way to have in compile-time the correct value for max_int after the call to reverse_int_setup(); Otherwise, is there an algorithm you consider better/leaner than the one I have for reverse_int()?
Thanks.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<limits.h>
#define TYPE_BITS sizeof(TYPE)*CHAR_BIT
typedef unsigned long TYPE;
TYPE reverser(TYPE n)
{
TYPE nrev = 0, i, bit1, bit2;
int count;
for(i = 0; i < TYPE_BITS; i += 2)
{
/*In each iteration, we swap one bit on the 'right half'
of the number with another on the left half*/
count = TYPE_BITS - i - 1; /*this is used to find how many positions
to the left (and right) we gotta move
the bits in this iteration*/
bit1 = n & (1<<(i/2)); /*Extract 'right half' bit*/
bit1 <<= count; /*Shift it to where it belongs*/
bit2 = n & 1<<((i/2) + count); /*Find the 'left half' bit*/
bit2 >>= count; /*Place that bit in bit1's original position*/
nrev |= bit1; /*Now add the bits to the reversal result*/
nrev |= bit2;
}
return nrev;
}
int main()
{
TYPE n = 6;
printf("%lu", reverser(n));
return 0;
}
This time I've used the 'number of bits' idea from TK, but made it somewhat more portable by not assuming a byte contains 8 bits and instead using the CHAR_BIT macro. The code is more efficient now (with the inner for loop removed). I hope the code is also slightly less cryptic this time. :)
The need for using count is that the number of positions by which we have to shift a bit varies in each iteration - we have to move the rightmost bit by 31 positions (assuming 32 bit number), the second rightmost bit by 29 positions and so on. Hence count must decrease with each iteration as i increases.
Hope that bit of info proves helpful in understanding the code...
The following program serves to demonstrate a leaner algorithm for reversing bits, which can be easily extended to handle 64bit numbers.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
int32_t x;
if ( argc != 2 )
{
printf("Usage: %s hexadecimal\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
sscanf(argv[1],"%x", &x);
/* swap every neigbouring bit */
x = (x&0xAAAAAAAA)>>1 | (x&0x55555555)<<1;
/* swap every 2 neighbouring bits */
x = (x&0xCCCCCCCC)>>2 | (x&0x33333333)<<2;
/* swap every 4 neighbouring bits */
x = (x&0xF0F0F0F0)>>4 | (x&0x0F0F0F0F)<<4;
/* swap every 8 neighbouring bits */
x = (x&0xFF00FF00)>>8 | (x&0x00FF00FF)<<8;
/* and so forth, for say, 32 bit int */
x = (x&0xFFFF0000)>>16 | (x&0x0000FFFF)<<16;
printf("0x%x\n",x);
return 0;
}
This code should not contain errors, and was tested using 0x12345678 to produce 0x1e6a2c48 which is the correct answer.
typedef unsigned long TYPE;
TYPE reverser(TYPE n)
{
TYPE k = 1, nrev = 0, i, nrevbit1, nrevbit2;
int count;
for(i = 0; !i || (1 << i && (1 << i) != 1); i+=2)
{
/*In each iteration, we swap one bit
on the 'right half' of the number with another
on the left half*/
k = 1<<i; /*this is used to find how many positions
to the left (or right, for the other bit)
we gotta move the bits in this iteration*/
count = 0;
while(k << 1 && k << 1 != 1)
{
k <<= 1;
count++;
}
nrevbit1 = n & (1<<(i/2));
nrevbit1 <<= count;
nrevbit2 = n & 1<<((i/2) + count);
nrevbit2 >>= count;
nrev |= nrevbit1;
nrev |= nrevbit2;
}
return nrev;
}
This works fine in gcc under Windows, but I'm not sure if it's completely platform independent. A few places of concern are:
the condition in the for loop - it assumes that when you left shift 1 beyond the leftmost bit, you get either a 0 with the 1 'falling out' (what I'd expect and what good old Turbo C gives iirc), or the 1 circles around and you get a 1 (what seems to be gcc's behaviour).
the condition in the inner while loop: see above. But there's a strange thing happening here: in this case, gcc seems to let the 1 fall out and not circle around!
The code might prove cryptic: if you're interested and need an explanation please don't hesitate to ask - I'll put it up someplace.
#ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ
In reply to ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ 's comments, I present modified version of above which depends on a upper limit for bit width.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
typedef int32_t TYPE;
TYPE reverse(TYPE x, int bits)
{
TYPE m=~0;
switch(bits)
{
case 64:
x = (x&0xFFFFFFFF00000000&m)>>16 | (x&0x00000000FFFFFFFF&m)<<16;
case 32:
x = (x&0xFFFF0000FFFF0000&m)>>16 | (x&0x0000FFFF0000FFFF&m)<<16;
case 16:
x = (x&0xFF00FF00FF00FF00&m)>>8 | (x&0x00FF00FF00FF00FF&m)<<8;
case 8:
x = (x&0xF0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0&m)>>4 | (x&0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F&m)<<4;
x = (x&0xCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC&m)>>2 | (x&0x3333333333333333&m)<<2;
x = (x&0xAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&m)>>1 | (x&0x5555555555555555&m)<<1;
}
return x;
}
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
TYPE x;
TYPE b = (TYPE)-1;
int bits;
if ( argc != 2 )
{
printf("Usage: %s hexadecimal\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
for(bits=1;b;b<<=1,bits++);
--bits;
printf("TYPE has %d bits\n", bits);
sscanf(argv[1],"%x", &x);
printf("0x%x\n",reverse(x, bits));
return 0;
}
Notes:
gcc will warn on the 64bit constants
the printfs will generate warnings too
If you need more than 64bit, the code should be simple enough to extend
I apologise in advance for the coding crimes I committed above - mercy good sir!
There's a nice collection of "Bit Twiddling Hacks", including a variety of simple and not-so simple bit reversing algorithms coded in C at http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html.
I personally like the "Obvious" algorigthm (http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#BitReverseObvious) because, well, it's obvious. Some of the others may require less instructions to execute. If I really need to optimize the heck out of something I may choose the not-so-obvious but faster versions. Otherwise, for readability, maintainability, and portability I would choose the Obvious one.
Here is a more generally useful variation. Its advantage is its ability to work in situations where the bit length of the value to be reversed -- the codeword -- is unknown but is guaranteed not to exceed a value we'll call maxLength. A good example of this case is Huffman code decompression.
The code below works on codewords from 1 to 24 bits in length. It has been optimized for fast execution on a Pentium D. Note that it accesses the lookup table as many as 3 times per use. I experimented with many variations that reduced that number to 2 at the expense of a larger table (4096 and 65,536 entries). This version, with the 256-byte table, was the clear winner, partly because it is so advantageous for table data to be in the caches, and perhaps also because the processor has an 8-bit table lookup/translation instruction.
const unsigned char table[] = {
0x00,0x80,0x40,0xC0,0x20,0xA0,0x60,0xE0,0x10,0x90,0x50,0xD0,0x30,0xB0,0x70,0xF0,
0x08,0x88,0x48,0xC8,0x28,0xA8,0x68,0xE8,0x18,0x98,0x58,0xD8,0x38,0xB8,0x78,0xF8,
0x04,0x84,0x44,0xC4,0x24,0xA4,0x64,0xE4,0x14,0x94,0x54,0xD4,0x34,0xB4,0x74,0xF4,
0x0C,0x8C,0x4C,0xCC,0x2C,0xAC,0x6C,0xEC,0x1C,0x9C,0x5C,0xDC,0x3C,0xBC,0x7C,0xFC,
0x02,0x82,0x42,0xC2,0x22,0xA2,0x62,0xE2,0x12,0x92,0x52,0xD2,0x32,0xB2,0x72,0xF2,
0x0A,0x8A,0x4A,0xCA,0x2A,0xAA,0x6A,0xEA,0x1A,0x9A,0x5A,0xDA,0x3A,0xBA,0x7A,0xFA,
0x06,0x86,0x46,0xC6,0x26,0xA6,0x66,0xE6,0x16,0x96,0x56,0xD6,0x36,0xB6,0x76,0xF6,
0x0E,0x8E,0x4E,0xCE,0x2E,0xAE,0x6E,0xEE,0x1E,0x9E,0x5E,0xDE,0x3E,0xBE,0x7E,0xFE,
0x01,0x81,0x41,0xC1,0x21,0xA1,0x61,0xE1,0x11,0x91,0x51,0xD1,0x31,0xB1,0x71,0xF1,
0x09,0x89,0x49,0xC9,0x29,0xA9,0x69,0xE9,0x19,0x99,0x59,0xD9,0x39,0xB9,0x79,0xF9,
0x05,0x85,0x45,0xC5,0x25,0xA5,0x65,0xE5,0x15,0x95,0x55,0xD5,0x35,0xB5,0x75,0xF5,
0x0D,0x8D,0x4D,0xCD,0x2D,0xAD,0x6D,0xED,0x1D,0x9D,0x5D,0xDD,0x3D,0xBD,0x7D,0xFD,
0x03,0x83,0x43,0xC3,0x23,0xA3,0x63,0xE3,0x13,0x93,0x53,0xD3,0x33,0xB3,0x73,0xF3,
0x0B,0x8B,0x4B,0xCB,0x2B,0xAB,0x6B,0xEB,0x1B,0x9B,0x5B,0xDB,0x3B,0xBB,0x7B,0xFB,
0x07,0x87,0x47,0xC7,0x27,0xA7,0x67,0xE7,0x17,0x97,0x57,0xD7,0x37,0xB7,0x77,0xF7,
0x0F,0x8F,0x4F,0xCF,0x2F,0xAF,0x6F,0xEF,0x1F,0x9F,0x5F,0xDF,0x3F,0xBF,0x7F,0xFF};
const unsigned short masks[17] =
{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0X0100,0X0300,0X0700,0X0F00,0X1F00,0X3F00,0X7F00,0XFF00};
unsigned long codeword; // value to be reversed, occupying the low 1-24 bits
unsigned char maxLength; // bit length of longest possible codeword (<= 24)
unsigned char sc; // shift count in bits and index into masks array
if (maxLength <= 8)
{
codeword = table[codeword << (8 - maxLength)];
}
else
{
sc = maxLength - 8;
if (maxLength <= 16)
{
codeword = (table[codeword & 0X00FF] << sc)
| table[codeword >> sc];
}
else if (maxLength & 1) // if maxLength is 17, 19, 21, or 23
{
codeword = (table[codeword & 0X00FF] << sc)
| table[codeword >> sc] |
(table[(codeword & masks[sc]) >> (sc - 8)] << 8);
}
else // if maxlength is 18, 20, 22, or 24
{
codeword = (table[codeword & 0X00FF] << sc)
| table[codeword >> sc]
| (table[(codeword & masks[sc]) >> (sc >> 1)] << (sc >> 1));
}
}
How about:
long temp = 0;
int counter = 0;
int number_of_bits = sizeof(value) * 8; // get the number of bits that represent value (assuming that it is aligned to a byte boundary)
while(value > 0) // loop until value is empty
{
temp <<= 1; // shift whatever was in temp left to create room for the next bit
temp |= (value & 0x01); // get the lsb from value and set as lsb in temp
value >>= 1; // shift value right by one to look at next lsb
counter++;
}
value = temp;
if (counter < number_of_bits)
{
value <<= counter-number_of_bits;
}
(I'm assuming that you know how many bits value holds and it is stored in number_of_bits)
Obviously temp needs to be the longest imaginable data type and when you copy temp back into value, all the extraneous bits in temp should magically vanish (I think!).
Or, the 'c' way would be to say :
while(value)
your choice
We can store the results of reversing all possible 1 byte sequences in an array (256 distinct entries), then use a combination of lookups into this table and some oring logic to get the reverse of integer.
Here is a variation and correction to TK's solution which might be clearer than the solutions by sundar. It takes single bits from t and pushes them into return_val:
typedef unsigned long TYPE;
#define TYPE_BITS sizeof(TYPE)*8
TYPE reverser(TYPE t)
{
unsigned int i;
TYPE return_val = 0
for(i = 0; i < TYPE_BITS; i++)
{/*foreach bit in TYPE*/
/* shift the value of return_val to the left and add the rightmost bit from t */
return_val = (return_val << 1) + (t & 1);
/* shift off the rightmost bit of t */
t = t >> 1;
}
return(return_val);
}
The generic approach hat would work for objects of any type of any size would be to reverse the of bytes of the object, and the reverse the order of bits in each byte. In this case the bit-level algorithm is tied to a concrete number of bits (a byte), while the "variable" logic (with regard to size) is lifted to the level of whole bytes.
Here's my generalization of freespace's solution (in case we one day get 128-bit machines). It results in jump-free code when compiled with gcc -O3, and is obviously insensitive to the definition of foo_t on sane machines. Unfortunately it does depend on shift being a power of 2!
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef unsigned long foo_t;
foo_t reverse(foo_t x)
{
int shift = sizeof (x) * CHAR_BIT / 2;
foo_t mask = (1 << shift) - 1;
int i;
for (i = 0; shift; i++) {
x = ((x & mask) << shift) | ((x & ~mask) >> shift);
shift >>= 1;
mask ^= (mask << shift);
}
return x;
}
int main() {
printf("reverse = 0x%08lx\n", reverse(0x12345678L));
}
In case bit-reversal is time critical, and mainly in conjunction with FFT, the best is to store the whole bit reversed array. In any case, this array will be smaller in size than the roots of unity that have to be precomputed in FFT Cooley-Tukey algorithm. An easy way to compute the array is:
int BitReverse[Size]; // Size is power of 2
void Init()
{
BitReverse[0] = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < Size/2; i++)
{
BitReverse[2*i] = BitReverse[i]/2;
BitReverse[2*i+1] = (BitReverse[i] + Size)/2;
}
} // end it's all