I am trying to convert a bit of code from Python to C. I have got it all working other than the section below. All the variables have been defined as ints. I believe the problem has to do with pointers and addresses but I can't work it out.
for(j=0; j<12; j++)
{
digitalWrite(CLOCK, 1);
sleep(0.001);
bit = digitalRead(DATA_IN);
sleep(0.001);
digitalWrite(CLOCK, 0);
value = bit * 2 ** (12-j-1); // error
anip = anip + value;
printf("j:%i bit:%i value:%i anip:%i", j, bit, value, anip);
}
The error is invalid type argument of unary ‘*’ (have ‘int’)
C has no exponentiation operator, which is what I guess you do ** for.
You can use e.g. pow if it's okay to typecast the result from a floating point value back to an integer.
In C, 1<<i is the best way to raise i to the power of 2.
Do not use ints for bit manipulation, because they vary in size by platform. Use uint32_t from /usr/include/stdint.h.
The sleep() function takes an integer argument and waits for the specified number of seconds. The argument 0.001 becomes 0, which is probably not what you want. Instead, try usleep(), which takes an argument that represents milliseconds.
The other answers will solve the generic problem of raising an arbitrary number to a power, or to a power of 2, but this is a very specific case.
The purpose of the loop is to read 11 bits serially from MSB to LSB and convert them into an integer. The implementation you've shown attempts to do this by reading a bit, shifting it to the correct position, and accumulating the result into anip. But there's an easier way:
anip = 0;
for (j=0; j<12; ++j) {
// Pulse the CLOCK line and read one bit, MSB first.
digitalWrite(CLOCK, 1);
usleep(1);
bit = digitalRead(DATA_IN);
usleep(1);
digitalWrite(CLOCK, 0);
// Accumulate the bits.
anip <<= 1; // Shift to make room for the new bit.
anip += bit; // Add the new bit.
printf("j:%i bit:%i anip:%i", j, bit, anip);
}
As an example, suppose the first 4 bits are 1,0,0,1. Then the output will be
j:0 bit:1 anip:1
j:1 bit:0 anip:10
j:2 bit:0 anip:100
j:3 bit:1 anip:1001
When the loop completes, anip will contain the value of the entire sequence of bits. This is a fairly standard idiom for reading data serially.
Although the advice to use uint32_t is generally appropriate, the C standard defines int to be at least 16 bits, which is more than the 12 you need (including the sign bit, if anip is signed). Moreover, you're probably writing this for a specific platform and therefore aren't worried about portability.
Related
I'm hoping that somebody can give me an understanding of why the code works the way it does. I'm trying to wrap my head around things but am lost.
My professor has given us this code snippet which we have to use in order to generate random numbers in C. The snippet in question generates a 64-bit integer, and we have to adapt it to also generate 32-bit, 16-bit, and 8-bit integers. I'm completely lost on where to start, and I'm not necessarily asking for a solution, just on how the original snippet works, so that I can adapt it form there.
long long rand64()
{
int a, b;
long long r;
a = rand();
b = rand();
r = (long long)a;
r = (r << 31) | b;
return r;
}
Questions I have about this code are:
Why is it shifted 31 bits? I thought rand() generated a number between 0-32767 which is 16 bits, so wouldn't that be 48 bits?
Why do we say | (or) b on the second to last line?
I'm making the relatively safe assumption that, in your computer's C implementation, long long is a 64-bit data type.
The key here is that, since long long r is signed, any value with the highest bit set will be negative. Therefore, the code shifts r by 31 bits to avoid setting that bit.
The | is a logical bit operator which combines the two values by setting all of the bits in r which are set in b.
EDIT:
After reading some of the comments, I realized that my answer needs correction. rand() returns a value no more than RAND_MAX which is typically 2^31-1. Therefore, r is a 31-bit integer. If you shifted it 32 bits to the left, you'd guarantee that its 31st bit (0-up counting) would always be zero.
rand() generates a random value [0...RAND_MAX] of questionable repute - but let us set that reputation aside and assume rand() is good enough and it is a
Mersenne number (power-of-2 - 1).
Weakness to OP's code: If RAND_MAX == pow(2,31)-1, a common occurrence, then OP's rand64() only returns values [0...pow(2,62)). #Nate Eldredge
Instead, loop as many times as needed.
To find how many random bits are returned with each call, we need the log2(RAND_MAX + 1). This fortunately is easy with an awesome macro from Is there any way to compute the width of an integer type at compile-time?
#include <stdlib.h>
/* Number of bits in inttype_MAX, or in any (1<<k)-1 where 0 <= k < 2040 */
#define IMAX_BITS(m) ((m)/((m)%255+1) / 255%255*8 + 7-86/((m)%255+12))
#define RAND_MAX_BITWIDTH (IMAX_BITS(RAND_MAX))
Example: rand_ul() returns a random value in the [0...ULONG_MAX] range, be unsigned long 32-bit, 64-bit, etc.
unsigned long rand_ul(void) {
unsigned long r = 0;
for (int i=0; i<IMAX_BITS(ULONG_MAX); i += RAND_MAX_BITWIDTH) {
r <<= RAND_MAX_BITWIDTH;
r |= rand();
}
return r;
}
I can't guess how to solve following problem. Assume I have a string or an array of integer-type variables (uchar, char, integer, whatever). Each of these data type is 1 byte long or more.
I would like to read from such array but read a pieces that are smaller than 1 byte, e.g. 3 bits (values 0-7). I tried to do a loop like
cout << ( (tab[index] >> lshift & lmask) | (tab[index+offset] >> rshift & rmask) );
but guessing how to set these variables is out of my reach. What is the metodology to solve such problem?
Sorry if question has been ever asked, but searching gives no answer.
I am sure this is not the best solution, as there some inefficiencies in the code that could be eliminated, but I think the idea is workable. I only tested it briefly:
void bits(uint8_t * src, int arrayLength, int nBitCount) {
int idxByte = 0; // byte index
int idxBitsShift = 7; // bit index: start at the high bit
// walk through the array, computing bit sets
while (idxByte < arrayLength) {
// compute a single bit set
int nValue = 0;
for (int i=2; i>=0; i--) {
nValue += (src[idxByte] & (1<<idxBitsShift)) >> (idxBitsShift-i);
if ((--idxBitsShift) < 0) {
idxBitsShift=8;
if (++idxByte >= arrayLength)
break;
}
}
// print it
printf("%d ", nValue);
}
}
int main() {
uint8_t a[] = {0xFF, 0x80, 0x04};
bits(a, 3, 3);
}
The thing with collecting bits across byte boundaries is a bit of a PITA, so I avoided all that by doing this a bit at a time, and then collecting the bits together in the nValue. You could have smarter code that does this three (or however many) bits at a time, but as far as I am concerned, with problems like this it is usually best to start with a simple solution (unless you already know how to do a better one) and then do something more complicated.
In short, the way the data is arranged in memory strictly depends on :
the Endianess
the standard used for computation/representation ( usually it's the IEEE 754 )
the type of the given variable
Now, you can't "disassemble" a data structure with this rationale without destroing its own meaning, simply put, if you are going to subdivide your variable in "bitfields" you are just picturing an undefined value.
In computer science there are data structure or informations structured in blocks, like many hashing algorithms/hash results, but a numerical value it's not stored like that and you are supposed to know what you are doing to prevent any data loss.
Another thing to note is that your definition of "pieces that are smaller than 1 byte" doesn't make much sense, it's also highly intrusive, you are losing abstraction here and you can also do something bad.
Here's the best method I could come up with for setting individual bits of a variable:
Assume we need to set the first four bits of variable1 (a char or other byte long variable) to 1010
variable1 &= 0b00001111; //Zero the first four bytes
variable1 |= 0b10100000; //Set them to 1010, its important that any unaffected bits be zero
This could be extended to whatever bits desired by placing zeros in the first number corresponding to the bits which you wish to set (the first four in the example's case), and placing zeros in the second number corresponding to the bits which you wish to remain neutral in the second number (the last four in the example's case). The second number could also be derived by bit-shifting your desired value by the appropriate number of places (which would have been four in the example's case).
In response to your comment this can be modified as follows to accommodate for increased variability:
For this operation we will need two shifts assuming you wish to be able to modify non-starting and non-ending bits. There are two sets of bits in this case the first (from the left) set of unaffected bits and the second set. If you wish to modify four bits skipping the first bit from the left (1 these four bits 111 for a single byte), the first shift would be would be 7 and the second shift would be 5.
variable1 &= ( ( 0b11111111 << shift1 ) | 0b11111111 >> shift2 );
Next the value we wish to assign needs to be shifted and or'ed in.
However, we will need a third shift to account for how many bits we want to set.
This shift (we'll call it shift3) is shift1 minus the number of bits we wish to modify (as previously mentioned 4).
variable1 |= ( value << shift3 );
I'm doing some exercises for Computer Science university and one of them is about converting an int array of 64 bit into it's double-precision floating point value.
Understanding the first bit, the sign +/-, is quite easy. Same for the exponent, as well as we know that the bias is 1023.
We are having problems with the significand. How can I calculate it?
In the end, I would like to obtain the real numbers that the bits meant.
computing the significand of the given 64 bit is quite easy.
according to the wiki article using the IEEE 754, the significand is made up the first 53 bits (from bit 0 to bit 52).
Now if you want to convert number having like 67 bits to your 64 bits value, it would be rounded by setting the trailing 64th bits of your value to 1, even if it was one before... because of the other 3 bits:
11110000 11110010 11111 becomes 11110000 11110011 after the rounding of the last byte;
therefore the there is no need to store the 53th bits because it has always a value a one.
that's why you only store in 52 bits in the significand instead of 53.
now to compute it, you just need to target the bit range of the significand [bit(1) - bit(52)] -bit(0) is always 1- and use it .
int index_signf = 1; // starting at 1, not 0
int significand_length = 52;
int byteArray[53]; // array containing the bits of the significand
double significand_endValue = 0;
for( ; index_signf <= significand_length ; index_signf ++)
{
significand_endValue += byteArray[index_signf] * (pow(2,-(index_signf)));
}
significand_endValue += 1;
Now you just have to fill byteArray accordlingly before computing it, using function like that:
int* getSignificandBits(int* array64bits){
//returned array
int significandBitsArray[53];
// indexes++
int i_array64bits = 0;
int i_significandBitsArray=1;
//set the first bit = 1
significandBitsArray[0] = 1;
// fill it
for(i_significandBitsArray=1, i_array64bits = (63 - 1); i_array64bits >= (64 - 52); i_array64bits--, i_significandBitsArray ++)
significandBitsArray[i_significandBitsArray] = array64bits[i_array64bits];
return significandBitsArray;
}
You could just load the bits into an unsigned integer of the same size as a double, take the address of that and cast it to a void* which you then cast to a double* and dereference.
Of course, this might be "cheating" if you really are supposed to parse the floating point standard, but this is how I would have solved the problem given the parameters you've stated so far.
If you have a byte representation of an object you can copy the bytes into the storage of a variable of the right type to convert it.
double convert_to_double(uint64_t x) {
double result;
mempcy(&result, &x, sizeof(x));
return result;
}
You will often see code like *(double *)&x to do the conversion, but whereas in practice this will always work it's undefined behavior in C.
I'm sure this has been asked before, but I need to implement a shift operator on a byte array of variable length size. I've looked around a bit but I have not found any standard way of doing it. I came up with an implementation which works, but I'm not sure how efficient it is. Does anyone know of a standard way to shift an array, or at least have any recommendation on how to boost the performance of my implementation;
char* baLeftShift(const char* array, size_t size, signed int displacement,char* result)
{
memcpy(result,array,size);
short shiftBuffer = 0;
char carryFlag = 0;
char* byte;
if(displacement > 0)
{
for(;displacement--;)
{
for(byte=&(result[size - 1]);((unsigned int)(byte))>=((unsigned int)(result));byte--)
{
shiftBuffer = *byte;
shiftBuffer <<= 1;
*byte = ((carryFlag) | ((char)(shiftBuffer)));
carryFlag = ((char*)(&shiftBuffer))[1];
}
}
}
else
{
unsigned int offset = ((unsigned int)(result)) + size;
displacement = -displacement;
for(;displacement--;)
{
for(byte=(char*)result;((unsigned int)(byte)) < offset;byte++)
{
shiftBuffer = *byte;
shiftBuffer <<= 7;
*byte = ((carryFlag) | ((char*)(&shiftBuffer))[1]);
carryFlag = ((char)(shiftBuffer));
}
}
}
return result;
}
If I can just add to what #dwelch is saying, you could try this.
Just move the bytes to their final locations. Then you are left with a shift count such as 3, for example, if each byte still needs to be left-shifted 3 bits into the next higher byte. (This assumes in your mind's eye the bytes are laid out in ascending order from right to left.)
Then rotate each byte to the left by 3. A lookup table might be faster than individually doing an actual rotate. Then, in each byte, the 3 bits to be shifted are now in the right-hand end of the byte.
Now make a mask M, which is (1<<3)-1, which is simply the low order 3 bits turned on.
Now, in order, from high order byte to low order byte, do this:
c[i] ^= M & (c[i] ^ c[i-1])
That will copy bits to c[i] from c[i-1] under the mask M.
For the last byte, just use a 0 in place of c[i-1].
For right shifts, same idea.
My first suggestion would be to eliminate the for loops around the displacement. You should be able to do the necessary shifts without the for(;displacement--;) loops. For displacements of magnitude greater than 7, things get a little trickier because your inner loop bounds will change and your source offset is no longer 1. i.e. your input buffer offset becomes magnitude / 8 and your shift becomes magnitude % 8.
It does look inefficient and perhaps this is what Nathan was referring to.
assuming a char is 8 bits where this code is running there are two things to do first move the whole bytes, for example if your input array is 0x00,0x00,0x12,0x34 and you shift left 8 bits then you get 0x00 0x12 0x34 0x00, there is no reason to do that in a loop 8 times one bit at a time. so start by shifting the whole chars in the array by (displacement>>3) locations and pad the holes created with zeros some sort of for(ra=(displacement>>3);ra>3)] = array[ra]; for(ra-=(displacement>>3);ra>(7-(displacement&7))). a good compiler will precompute (displacement>>3), displacement&7, 7-(displacement&7) and a good processor will have enough registers to keep all of those values. you might help the compiler by making separate variables for each of those items, but depending on the compiler and how you are using it it could make it worse too.
The bottom line though is time the code. perform a thousand 1 bit shifts then a thousand 2 bit shifts, etc time the whole thing, then try a different algorithm and time it the same way and see if the optimizations make a difference, make it better or worse. If you know ahead of time this code will only ever be used for single or less than 8 bit shifts adjust the timing test accordingly.
your use of the carry flag implies that you are aware that many processors have instructions specifically for chaining infinitely long shifts using the standard register length (for single bit at a time) rotate through carry basically. Which the C language does not support directly. for chaining single bit shifts you could consider assembler and likely outperform the C code. at least the single bit shifts are faster than C code can do. A hybrid of moving the bytes then if the number of bits to shift (displacement&7) is maybe less than 4 use the assembler else use a C loop. again the timing tests will tell you where the optimizations are.
Our OS professor mentioned that for assigning a process id to a new process, the kernel incrementally searches for the first zero bit in a array of size equivalent to the maximum number of processes(~32,768 by default), where an allocated process id has 1 stored in it.
As far as I know, there is no bit data type in C. Obviously, there's something I'm missing here.
Is there any such special construct from which we can build up a bit array? How is this done exactly?
More importantly, what are the operations that can be performed on such an array?
Bit arrays are simply byte arrays where you use bitwise operators to read the individual bits.
Suppose you have a 1-byte char variable. This contains 8 bits. You can test if the lowest bit is true by performing a bitwise AND operation with the value 1, e.g.
char a = /*something*/;
if (a & 1) {
/* lowest bit is true */
}
Notice that this is a single ampersand. It is completely different from the logical AND operator &&. This works because a & 1 will "mask out" all bits except the first, and so a & 1 will be nonzero if and only if the lowest bit of a is 1. Similarly, you can check if the second lowest bit is true by ANDing it with 2, and the third by ANDing with 4, etc, for continuing powers of two.
So a 32,768-element bit array would be represented as a 4096-element byte array, where the first byte holds bits 0-7, the second byte holds bits 8-15, etc. To perform the check, the code would select the byte from the array containing the bit that it wanted to check, and then use a bitwise operation to read the bit value from the byte.
As far as what the operations are, like any other data type, you can read values and write values. I explained how to read values above, and I'll explain how to write values below, but if you're really interested in understanding bitwise operations, read the link I provided in the first sentence.
How you write a bit depends on if you want to write a 0 or a 1. To write a 1-bit into a byte a, you perform the opposite of an AND operation: an OR operation, e.g.
char a = /*something*/;
a = a | 1; /* or a |= 1 */
After this, the lowest bit of a will be set to 1 whether it was set before or not. Again, you could write this into the second position by replacing 1 with 2, or into the third with 4, and so on for powers of two.
Finally, to write a zero bit, you AND with the inverse of the position you want to write to, e.g.
char a = /*something*/;
a = a & ~1; /* or a &= ~1 */
Now, the lowest bit of a is set to 0, regardless of its previous value. This works because ~1 will have all bits other than the lowest set to 1, and the lowest set to zero. This "masks out" the lowest bit to zero, and leaves the remaining bits of a alone.
A struct can assign members bit-sizes, but that's the extent of a "bit-type" in 'C'.
struct int_sized_struct {
int foo:4;
int bar:4;
int baz:24;
};
The rest of it is done with bitwise operations. For example. searching that PID bitmap can be done with:
extern uint32_t *process_bitmap;
uint32_t *p = process_bitmap;
uint32_t bit_offset = 0;
uint32_t bit_test;
/* Scan pid bitmap 32 entries per cycle. */
while ((*p & 0xffffffff) == 0xffffffff) {
p++;
}
/* Scan the 32-bit int block that has an open slot for the open PID */
bit_test = 0x80000000;
while ((*p & bit_test) == bit_test) {
bit_test >>= 1;
bit_offset++;
}
pid = (p - process_bitmap)*8 + bit_offset;
This is roughly 32x faster than doing a simple for loop scanning an array with one byte per PID. (Actually, greater than 32x since more of the bitmap is will stay in CPU cache.)
see http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html
No bit type in C, but bit manipulation is fairly straight forward. Some processors have bit specific instructions which the code below would nicely optimize for, even without that should be pretty fast. May or may not be faster using an array of 32 bit words instead of bytes. Inlining instead of functions would also help performance.
If you have the memory to burn just use a whole byte to store one bit (or whole 32 bit number, etc) greatly improve performance at the cost of memory used.
unsigned char data[SIZE];
unsigned char get_bit ( unsigned int offset )
{
//TODO: limit check offset
if(data[offset>>3]&(1<<(offset&7))) return(1);
else return(0);
}
void set_bit ( unsigned int offset, unsigned char bit )
{
//TODO: limit check offset
if(bit) data[offset>>3]|=1<<(offset&7);
else data[offset>>3]&=~(1<<(offset&7));
}