My code is below, and it works for most inputs, but I've noticed that for very large numbers(2147483647 divided by 2 for a specific example), I get a segmentation fault and the program stops working. Note that the badd() and bsub() functions simply add or subtract integers respectively.
unsigned int bdiv(unsigned int dividend, unsigned int divisor){
int quotient = 1;
if (divisor == dividend)
{
return 1;
}
else if (dividend < divisor)
{ return -1; }// this represents dividing by zero
quotient = badd(quotient, bdiv(bsub(dividend, divisor), divisor));
return quotient;
}
I'm also having a bit of trouble with my bmult() function. It works for some values, but the program fails for values such as -8192 times 3. This function is also listed. Thanks in advance for any help. I really appreciate it!
int bmult(int x,int y){
int total=0;
/*for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--)
{
total = total << 1;
if(y&1 ==1)
total = badd(total,x);
}
return total;*/
while (x != 0)
{
if ((x&1) != 0)
{
total = badd(total, y);
}
y <<= 1;
x >>= 1;
}
return total;
}
The problem with your bdiv is most likely resulting from recursion depth. In the example you gave, you will be putting about 1073741824 frames on to the stack, basically using up your allotted memory.
In fact, there is no real reason this function need be recursive. I could quite easily be converted to an iterative solution, alleviating the stack issue.
In the multiplication, this line is going to overflow and truncate y, and so badd() will be getting wrong inputs:
y<<=1;
This line:
x>>=1;
Is not going to work for negative x well. Most compilers will do a so-called arithmetic shift here, which is like a regular shift with 0 shifted into the most significant bit, but with a twist, the most significant bit will not change. So, shifting any negative value right will eventually give you -1. And -1 shifted right will remain -1, resulting in an infinite loop in your multiplication.
You should not be using the algorithm for multiplication of unsigned integers to multiply signed integers. It's unlikely to work well (if at all) if it uses signed types in its core.
If you want to multiply signed integers, you can first implement multiplication for unsigned ones, using unsigned types. And then you can actually use it for signed multiplication. This will work on virtually all systems because they use 2's complement representation of signed integers.
Examples (assuming 16-bit 2's complement integers):
-1 * +1 -> 0xFFFF * 1 = 0xFFFF -> convert back to signed -> -1
-1 * -1 -> 0xFFFF * 0xFFFF = 0xFFFE0001 -> truncate to 16 bits & convert to signed -> 1
In the division the following two lines
else if (dividend < divisor)
{ return -1; }// this represents dividing by zero
Are plain wrong. Think, how much is 1/2? It's 0, not -1 or (unsigned int)-1.
Further, how much is UINT_MAX/1? It's UINT_MAX. So, when your division function returns UINT_MAX or (unsigned int)-1 you won't be able to tell the difference, because the two values are the same. You really should use a different mechanism to notify the caller of the overflow.
Oh, and of course, this line:
quotient = badd(quotient, bdiv(bsub(dividend, divisor), divisor));
is going to cause a stack overflow when the quotient is expected to be big. Don't do this recursively. At the very least, use a loop instead.
Related
I have been given this problem and would like to solve it in C:
Assume you have a 32-bit processor and that the C compiler does not support long long (or long int). Write a function add(a,b) which returns c = a+b where a and b are 32-bit integers.
I wrote this code which is able to detect overflow and underflow
#define INT_MIN (-2147483647 - 1) /* minimum (signed) int value */
#define INT_MAX 2147483647 /* maximum (signed) int value */
int add(int a, int b)
{
if (a > 0 && b > INT_MAX - a)
{
/* handle overflow */
printf("Handle over flow\n");
}
else if (a < 0 && b < INT_MIN - a)
{
/* handle underflow */
printf("Handle under flow\n");
}
return a + b;
}
I am not sure how to implement the long using 32 bit registers so that I can print the value properly. Can someone help me with how to use the underflow and overflow information so that I can store the result properly in the c variable with I think should be 2 32 bit locations. I think that is what the problem is saying when it hints that that long is not supported. Would the variable c be 2 32 bit registers put together somehow to hold the correct result so that it can be printed? What action should I preform when the result over or under flows?
Since this is a homework question I'll try not to spoil it completely.
One annoying aspect here is that the result is bigger than anything you're allowed to use (I interpret the ban on long long to also include int64_t, otherwise there's really no point to it). It may be temping to go for "two ints" for the result value, but that's weird to interpret the value of. So I'd go for two uint32_t's and interpret them as two halves of a 64 bit two's complement integer.
Unsigned multiword addition is easy and has been covered many times (just search). The signed variant is really the same if the inputs are sign-extended: (not tested)
uint32_t a_l = a;
uint32_t a_h = -(a_l >> 31); // sign-extend a
uint32_t b_l = b;
uint32_t b_h = -(b_l >> 31); // sign-extend b
// todo: implement the addition
return some struct containing c_l and c_h
It can't overflow the 64 bit result when interpreted signed, obviously. It can (and should, sometimes) wrap.
To print that thing, if that's part of the assignment, first reason about which values c_h can have. There aren't many possibilities. It should be easy to print using existing integer printing functions (that is, you don't have to write a whole multiword-itoa, just handle a couple of cases).
As a hint for the addition: what happens when you add two decimal digits and the result is larger than 9? Why is the low digit of 7+6=13 a 3? Given only 7, 6 and 3, how can you determine the second digit of the result? You should be able to apply all this to base 232 as well.
First, the simplest solution that satisfies the problem as stated:
double add(int a, int b)
{
// this will not lose precision, as a double-precision float
// will have more than 33 bits in the mantissa
return (double) a + b;
}
More seriously, the professor probably expected the number to be decomposed into a combination of ints. Holding the sum of two 32-bit integers requires 33 bits, which can be represented with an int and a bit for the carry flag. Assuming unsigned integers for simplicity, adding would be implemented like this:
struct add_result {
unsigned int sum;
unsigned int carry:1;
};
struct add_result add(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
struct add_result ret;
ret.sum = a + b;
ret.carry = b > UINT_MAX - a;
return ret;
}
The harder part is doing something useful with the result, such as printing it. As proposed by harold, a printing function doesn't need to do full division, it can simply cover the possible large 33-bit values and hard-code the first digits for those ranges. Here is an implementation, again limited to unsigned integers:
void print_result(struct add_result n)
{
if (!n.carry) {
// no carry flag - just print the number
printf("%d\n", n.sum);
return;
}
if (n.sum < 705032704u)
printf("4%09u\n", n.sum + 294967296u);
else if (n.sum < 1705032704u)
printf("5%09u\n", n.sum - 705032704u);
else if (n.sum < 2705032704u)
printf("6%09u\n", n.sum - 1705032704u);
else if (n.sum < 3705032704u)
printf("7%09u\n", n.sum - 2705032704u);
else
printf("8%09u\n", n.sum - 3705032704u);
}
Converting this to signed quantities is left as an exercise.
I am attempting exercise 2.1 of K&R. The exercise reads:
Write a program to determine the ranges of char, short, int, and long variables, both signed and unsigned, by printing appropriate values from standard headers and by direct computation. Harder if you compute them: determine the ranges of the various floating-point types.
Printing the values of constants in the standards headers is easy, just like this (only integer shown for example):
printf("Integral Ranges (from constants)\n");
printf("int max: %d\n", INT_MAX);
printf("int min: %d\n", INT_MIN);
printf("unsigned int max: %u\n", UINT_MAX);
However, I want to determine the limits programmatically.
I tried this code which seems like it should work but it actually goes into an infinite loop and gets stuck there:
printf("Integral Ranges (determined programmatically)\n");
int i_max = 0;
while ((i_max + 1) > i_max) {
++i_max;
}
printf("int max: %d\n", i_max);
Why is this getting stuck in a loop? It would seem that when an integer overflows it jumps from 2147483647 to -2147483648. The incremented value is obviously smaller than the previous value so the loop should end, but it doesn't.
Ok, I was about to write a comment but it got too long...
Are you allowed to use sizeof?
If true, then there is an easy way to find the max value for any type:
For example, I'll find the maximum value for an integer:
Definition: INT_MAX = (1 << 31) - 1 for 32-bit integer (2^31 - 1)
The previous definition overflows if we use integers to compute int max, so, it has to be adapted properly:
INT_MAX = (1 << 31) - 1
= ((1 << 30) * 2) - 1
= ((1 << 30) - 1) * 2 + 2) - 1
= ((1 << 30) - 1) * 2) + 1
And using sizeof:
INT_MAX = ((1 << (sizeof(int)*8 - 2) - 1) * 2) + 1
You can do the same for any signed/unsigned type by just reading the rules for each type.
So it actually wasn't getting stuck in an infinite loop. C code is usually so fast that I assume it's broken if it doesn't complete immediately.
It did eventually return the correct answer after I let it run for about 10 seconds. Turns out that 2,147,483,647 increments takes quite a few cycles to complete.
I should also note that I compiled with cc -O0 to disable optimizations, so this wasn't the problem.
A faster solution might look something like this:
int i_max = 0;
int step_size = 256;
while ((i_max + step_size) > i_max) {
i_max += step_size;
}
while ((i_max + 1) > i_max) {
++i_max;
}
printf("int max: %d\n", i_max);
However, as signed overflow is undefined behavior, probably it is a terrible idea to ever try to programmatically guess this in practice. Better to use INT_MAX.
The simplest I could come up with is:
signed int max_signed_int = ~(1 << ((sizeof(int) * 8) -1));
signed int min_signed_int = (1 << ((sizeof(int) * 8) -1));
unsigned int max_unsigned_int = ~0U;
unsigned int min_unsigned_int = 0U;
In my system:
// max_signed_int = 2147483647
// min_signed_int = -2147483648
// max_unsigned_int = 4294967295
// min_unsigned_int = 0
Assuming a two's complement processor, use unsigned math:
unsigned ... smax, smin;
smax = ((unsigned ...)0 - (unsigned ...)1) / (unsigned ...) 2;
smin = ~smax;
As it has been pointed here in other solutions, trying to overflow an integer in C is undefined behaviour, but, at least in this case, I think you can get an valid answer, even from the U.B. thing:
The case is tha if you increment a value and compare the new value with the last, you always get a greater value, except on an overflow (in this case you'll get a value lesser or equal ---you don't have more values greater, that's the case in an overflow) So you can try at least:
int i_old = 0, i = 0;
while (++i > i_old)
i_old = i;
printf("MAX_INT guess: %d\n", i_old);
After this loop, you will have got the expected overflow, and old_i will store the last valid number. Of course, in case you go down, you'll have to use this snippet of code:
int i_old = 0, i = 0;
while (--i < i_old)
i_old = i;
printf("MIN_INT guess: %d\n", i_old);
Of course, U.B. can even mean program stopping run (in this case, you'll have to put traces, to get at least the last value printed)
By the way, in the ancient times of K&R, integers used to be 16bit wide, a value easily accessible by counting up (easier than now, try 64bit integers overflow from 0 up)
I would use the properties of two's complement to compute the values.
unsigned int uint_max = ~0U;
signed int int_max = uint_max >> 1;
signed int int_min1 = (-int_max - 1);
signed int int_min2 = ~int_max;
2^3 is 1000. 2^3 - 1 is 0111. 2^4 - 1 is 1111.
w is the length in bits of your data type.
uint_max is 2^w - 1, or 111...111. This effect is achieved by using ~0U.
int_max is 2^(w-1) - 1, or 0111...111. This effect can be achieved by bitshifting uint_max 1 bit to the right. Since uint_max is an unsigned value, the logical shift is applied by the >> operator, means it adds in leading zeroes instead of extending the sign bit.
int_min is -2^(w-1), or 100...000. In two's complement, the most significant bit has a negative weight!
This is how to visualize the first expression for computing int_min1:
...
011...111 int_max +2^(w-1) - 1
100...000 (-int_max - 1) -2^(w-1) == -2^(w-1) + 1 - 1
100...001 -int_max -2^(w-1) + 1 == -(+2^(w-1) - 1)
...
Adding 1 would be moving down, and subtracting 1 would be moving up. First we negate int_max in order to generate a valid int value, then we subtract 1 to get int_min. We can't just negate (int_max + 1) because that would exceed int_max itself, the biggest int value.
Depending on which version of C or C++ you are using, the expression -(int_max + 1) would either become a signed 64-bit integer, keeping the signedness but sacrificing the original bit width, or it would become an unsigned 32-bit integer, keeping the original bit width but sacrificing the signedness. We need to declare int_min programatically in this roundabout way to keep it a valid int value.
If that's a bit (or byte) too complicated for you, you can just do ~int_max, observing that int_max is 011...111 and int_min is 100...000.
Keep in mind that these techniques I've mentioned here can be used for any bit width w of an integer data type. They can be used for char, short, int, long, and also long long. Keep in mind that integer literals are almost always 32-bits by default, so you may have to cast the 0U to the data type with the appropriate bit width before bitwise NOTing it. But other than that, these techniques are based on the fundamental mathematical principles of two's complement integer representation. That said, they won't work if your computer uses a different way of representing integers, for example ones' complement or most-significant sign-bit.
The assignment says that "printing appropriate values from standard headers" is allowed, and in the real world, that is what you would do. As your prof wrote, direct computation is harder, and why make things harder for its own sake when you're working on another interesting problem and you just want the result? Look up the constants in <limits.h>, for example, INT_MIN and INT_MAX.
Since this is homework and you want to solve it yourself, here are some hints.
The language standard technically allows any of three different representations for signed numbers: two's-complement, one's-complement and sign-and-magnitude. Sure, every computer made in the last fifty years has used two's-complement (with the partial exception of legacy code for certain Unisys mainframes), but if you really want to language-lawyer, you could compute the smallest number for each of the three possible representations and find the minimum by comparing them.
Attempting to find the answer by overflowing or underflowing a signed value does not work! This is undefined behavior! You may in theory, but not in practice, increment an unsigned value of the same width, convert to the corresponding signed type, and compare to the result of casting the previous or next unsigned value. For 32-bit long, this might just be tolerable; it will not scale to a machine where long is 64 bits wide.
You want to use the bitwise operators, particularly ~ and <<, to calculate the largest and smallest value for every type. Note: CHAR_BITS * sizeof(x) gives you the number of bits in x, and left-shifting 0x01UL by one fewer than that, then casting to the desired type, sets the highest bit.
For floating-point values, the only portable way is to use the constants in <math.h>; floating-point values might or might not be able to represent positive and negative infinity, are not constrained to use any particular format. That said, if your compiler supports the optional Annex G of the C11 standard, which specifies IEC 60559 complex arithmetic, then dividing a nonzero floating-point number by zero will be defined as producing infinity, which does allow you to "compute" infinity and negative infinity. If so, the implementation will #define __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ as 1.
If you detect that infinity is not supported on your implementation, for instance by checking whether INFINITY and -INFINITY are infinities, you would want to use HUGE_VAL and -HUGE_VAL instead.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int n = 1;
while(n>0) {
n=n<<1;
}
int int_min = n;
int int_max = -(n+1);
printf("int_min is: %d\n",int_min);
printf("int_max is: %d\n", int_max);
return 0;
}
unsigned long LMAX=(unsigned long)-1L;
long SLMAX=LMAX/2;
long SLMIN=-SLMAX-1;
If you don't have yhe L suffix just use a variable or cast to signed before castong to unsigned.
For long long:
unsigned long long LLMAX=(unsigned long long)-1LL;
If x is an unsigned int type is there a difference in these statements:
return (x & 7);
and
return (-x & 7);
I understand negating an unsigned value gives a value of max_int - value. But is there a difference in the return value (i.e. true/false) among the above two statements under any specific boundary conditions OR are they both same functionally?
Test code:
#include <stdio.h>
static unsigned neg7(unsigned x) { return -x & 7; }
static unsigned pos7(unsigned x) { return +x & 7; }
int main(void)
{
for (unsigned i = 0; i < 8; i++)
printf("%u: pos %u; neg %u\n", i, pos7(i), neg7(i));
return 0;
}
Test results:
0: pos 0; neg 0
1: pos 1; neg 7
2: pos 2; neg 6
3: pos 3; neg 5
4: pos 4; neg 4
5: pos 5; neg 3
6: pos 6; neg 2
7: pos 7; neg 1
For the specific case of 4 (and also 0), there isn't a difference; for other values, there is a difference. You can extend the range of the input, but the outputs will produce the same pattern.
If you ask specifically for true/false (i.e. is zero / not zero) and two's complement then there is indeed no difference. (You do however return not just a simple truth value but allow different bit patterns for true. As long as the caller does not distinguish, that is fine.)
Consider how a two's complement negation is formed: invert the bits then increment. Since you take only the least significant bits, there will be no carry in for the increment. This is a necessity, so you can't do this with anything but a range of least significant bits.
Let's look at the two cases:
First, if the three low bits are zero (for a false equivalent). Inverting gives all ones, incrementing turns them to zero again. The fourth and more significant bits might be different, but they don't influence the least significant bits and they don't influence the result since they are masked out. So this stays.
Second, if the three low bits are not all zero (for a true equivalent). The only way this can change into false is when the increment operation leaves them at zero, which can only happen if they were all ones before, which in turn could only happen if they were all zeros before the inversion. That can't be, since that is the first case. Again, the more significant bits don't influence the three low bits and they are masked out. So the result does not change.
But again, this only works when the caller considers only the truth value (all bits zero / not all bits zero) and when the mask allows a range of bits starting from the least significant without a gap.
Firstly, negating an unsigned int value produces UINT_MAX - original_value + 1. (For example, 0 remains 0 under negation). The alternative way to describe negation is full inversion of all bits followed by increment.
It is not clear why you'd even ask this question, since it is obvious that basically the very first example that comes to mind — an unsigned int value 1 — already produces different results in your expression. 1u & 7 is 1, while -1u & 7 is 7. Did you mean something else, by any chance?
I'm implementing a relative branching function in my simple VM.
Basically, I'm given an 8-bit relative value. I then shift this left by 1 bit to make it a 9-bit value. So, for instance, if you were to say "branch +127" this would really mean, 127 instructions, and thus would add 256 to the IP.
My current code looks like this:
uint8_t argument = 0xFF; //-1 or whatever
int16_t difference = argument << 1;
*ip += difference; //ip is a uint16_t
I don't believe difference will ever be detected as a less than 0 with this however. I'm rusty on how signed to unsigned works. Beyond that, I'm not sure the difference would be correctly be subtracted from IP in the case argument is say -1 or -2 or something.
Basically, I'm wanting something that would satisfy these "tests"
//case 1
argument = -5
difference -> -10
ip = 20 -> 10 //ip starts at 20, but becomes 10 after applying difference
//case 2
argument = 127 (must fit in a byte)
difference -> 254
ip = 20 -> 274
Hopefully that makes it a bit more clear.
Anyway, how would I do this cheaply? I saw one "solution" to a similar problem, but it involved division. I'm working with slow embedded processors (assumed to be without efficient ways to multiply and divide), so that's a pretty big thing I'd like to avoid.
To clarify: you worry that left shifting a negative 8 bit number will make it appear like a positive nine bit number? Just pad the top 9 bits with the sign bit of the initial number before left shift:
diff = 0xFF;
int16 diff16=(diff + (diff & 0x80)*0x01FE) << 1;
Now your diff16 is signed 2*diff
As was pointed out by Richard J Ross III, you can avoid the multiplication (if that's expensive on your platform) with a conditional branch:
int16 diff16 = (diff + ((diff & 0x80)?0xFF00:0))<<1;
If you are worried about things staying in range and such ("undefined behavior"), you can do
int16 diff16 = diff;
diff16 = (diff16 | ((diff16 & 0x80)?0x7F00:0))<<1;
At no point does this produce numbers that are going out of range.
The cleanest solution, though, seems to be "cast and shift":
diff16 = (signed char)diff; // recognizes and preserves the sign of diff
diff16 = (short int)((unsigned short)diff16)<<1; // left shift, preserving sign
This produces the expected result, because the compiler automatically takes care of the sign bit (so no need for the mask) in the first line; and in the second line, it does a left shift on an unsigned int (for which overflow is well defined per the standard); the final cast back to short int ensures that the number is correctly interpreted as negative. I believe that in this form the construct is never "undefined".
All of my quotes come from the C standard, section 6.3.1.3. Unsigned to signed is well defined when the value is within range of the signed type:
1 When a value with integer type is converted to another integer type
other than _Bool, if the value can be represented by the new type, it
is unchanged.
Signed to unsigned is well defined:
2 Otherwise, if the new type is unsigned, the value is converted by
repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that
can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of
the new type.
Unsigned to signed, when the value lies out of range isn't too well defined:
3 Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be
represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an
implementation-defined signal is raised.
Unfortunately, your question lies in the realm of point 3. C doesn't guarantee any implicit mechanism to convert out-of-range values, so you'll need to explicitly provide one. The first step is to decide which representation you intend to use: Ones' complement, two's complement or sign and magnitude
The representation you use will affect the translation algorithm you use. In the example below, I'll use two's complement: If the sign bit is 1 and the value bits are all 0, this corresponds to your lowest value. Your lowest value is another choice you must make: In the case of two's complement, it'd make sense to use either of INT16_MIN (-32768) or INT8_MIN (-128). In the case of the other two, it'd make sense to use INT16_MIN - 1 or INT8_MIN - 1 due to the presense of negative zeros, which should probably be translated to be indistinguishable from regular zeros. In this example, I'll use INT8_MIN, since it makes sense that (uint8_t) -1 should translate to -1 as an int16_t.
Separate the sign bit from the value bits. The value should be the absolute value, except in the case of a two's complement minimum value when sign will be 1 and the value will be 0. Of course, the sign bit can be where-ever you like it to be, though it's conventional for it to rest at the far left hand side. Hence, shifting right 7 places obtains the conventional "sign" bit:
uint8_t sign = input >> 7;
uint8_t value = input & (UINT8_MAX >> 1);
int16_t result;
If the sign bit is 1, we'll call this a negative number and add to INT8_MIN to construct the sign so we don't end up in the same conundrum we started with, or worse: undefined behaviour (which is the fate of one of the other answers).
if (sign == 1) {
result = INT8_MIN + value;
}
else {
result = value;
}
This can be shortened to:
int16_t result = (input >> 7) ? INT8_MIN + (input & (UINT8_MAX >> 1)) : input;
... or, better yet:
int16_t result = input <= INT8_MAX ? input
: INT8_MIN + (int8_t)(input % (uint8_t) INT8_MIN);
The sign test now involves checking if it's in the positive range. If it is, the value remains unchanged. Otherwise, we use addition and modulo to produce the correct negative value. This is fairly consistent with the C standard's language above. It works well for two's complement, because int16_t and int8_t are guaranteed to use a two's complement representation internally. However, types like int aren't required to use a two's complement representation internally. When converting unsigned int to int for example, there needs to be another check, so that we're treating values less than or equal to INT_MAX as positive, and values greater than or equal to (unsigned int) INT_MIN as negative. Any other values need to be handled as errors; In this case I treat them as zeros.
/* Generate some random input */
srand(time(NULL));
unsigned int input = rand();
for (unsigned int x = UINT_MAX / ((unsigned int) RAND_MAX + 1); x > 1; x--) {
input *= (unsigned int) RAND_MAX + 1;
input += rand();
}
int result = /* Handle positives: */ input <= INT_MAX ? input
: /* Handle negatives: */ input >= (unsigned int) INT_MIN ? INT_MIN + (int)(input % (unsigned int) INT_MIN)
: /* Handle errors: */ 0;
If the offset is in the 2's complement representation, then
convert this
uint8_t argument = 0xFF; //-1
int16_t difference = argument << 1;
*ip += difference;
into this:
uint8_t argument = 0xFF; //-1
int8_t signed_argument;
signed_argument = argument; // this relies on implementation-defined
// conversion of unsigned to signed, usually it's
// just a bit-wise copy on 2's complement systems
// OR
// memcpy(&signed_argument, &argument, sizeof argument);
*ip += signed_argument + signed_argument;
I'm working with some embedded hardware, a Rabbit SBC, which uses Dynamic C 9.
I'm using the microcontroller to read information from a digital compass sensor using one of its serial ports.
The sensor sends values to the microcontroller using a single signed byte. (-85 to 85)
When I receive this data, I am putting it into a char variable
This works fine for positive values, but when the sensor starts to send negative values, the reading jumps to 255, then works its way back down to 0. I presume this is because the last bit is being used to determine the negative/positive, and is skewing the real values.
My inital thought was to change my data type to a signed char.
However, the problem I have is that the version of Dynamic C on the Microcontroller I am using does not natively support signed char values, only unsigned.
I am wondering if there is a way to manually cast the data I receive into a signed value?
You just need to pull out your reference book and read how negative numbers are represented by your controller. The rest is just typing.
For example, two's complement is represented by taking the value mod 256, so you just need to adjust by the modulus.
int signed_from_unsignedchar(unsigned char c)
{
int result = c;
if (result >= 128) result -= 256;
return result;
}
One's complement is much simpler: You just flip the bits.
int signed_from_unsignedchar(unsigned char c)
{
int result = c;
if (result >= 128) result = -(int)(unsigned char)~c;
return result;
}
Sign-magnitude represents negative numbers by setting the high bit, so you just need to clear the bit and negate:
int signed_from_unsignedchar(unsigned char c)
{
int result = c;
if (result >= 128) result = -(result & 0x7F);
return result;
}
I think this is what you're after (assumes a 32-bit int and an 8-bit char):
unsigned char c = 255;
int i = ((int)(((unsigned int)c) << 24)) >> 24;
of course I'm assuming here that your platform does support signed integers, which may not be the case.
Signed and unsigned values are all just a bunch of bits, it is YOUR interpretation that makes them signed or unsigned. For example, if your hardware produces 2's complement, if you read 0xff, you can either interpret it as -1 or 255 but they are really the same number.
Now if you have only unsigned char at your disposal, you have to emulate the behavior of negative values with it.
For example:
c < 0
changes to
c > 127
Luckily, addition doesn't need change. Also subtraction is the same (check this I'm not 100% sure).
For multiplication for example, you need to check it yourself. First, in 2's complement, here's how you get the positive value of the number:
pos_c = ~neg_c+1
which is mathematically speaking 256-neg_c which congruent modulo 256 is simply -neg_c
Now let's say you want to multiply two numbers that are unsigned, but you want to interpret them as signed.
unsigned char abs_a = a, abs_b = b;
char final_sign = 0; // 0 for positive, 1 for negative
if (a > 128)
{
abs_a = ~a+1
final_sign = 1-final_sign;
}
if (b > 128)
{
abs_b = ~b+1
final_sign = 1-final_sign;
}
result = abs_a*abs_b;
if (sign == 1)
result = ~result+1;
You get the idea!
If your platform supports signed ints, check out some of the other answers.
If not, and the value is definitely between -85 and +85, and it is two's complement, add 85 to the input value and work out your program logic to interpret values between 0 and 170 so you don't have to mess with signed integers anymore.
If it's one's complement, try this:
if (x >= 128) {
x = 85 - (x ^ 0xff);
} else {
x = x + 85;
}
That will leave you with a value between 0 and 170 as well.
EDIT: Yes, there is also sign-magnitude. Then use the same code here but change the second line to x = 85 - (x & 0x7f).