Related
I just found legacy code which tests a flag like this:
if( some_state & SOME_FLAG )
So far, so good!
But further in code, I see an improper negation
if( ! some_state & SOME_FLAG )
My understanding is that it is interpreted as (! some_state) & SOME_FLAG which is probably a bug, and gcc logically barks with -Wlogical-not-parentheses...
Though it could eventually have worked in the past if ever !some_state was implemented as ~some_state by some legacy compiler. Does anyone know if it was possibly the case?
EDIT
sme_state is declared as int (presumably 32 bits, 2 complement on target achitecture).
SOME_FLAG is a constant set to a single bit 0x00040000, so SOME_FLAG & 1 == 0
Logical negation and bitwise negation have never been equivalent. No conforming compiler could have implemented one as the other. For example, the bitwise negation of 1 is not 0, so ~1 != !1.
It is true that the expression ! some_state & SOME_FLAG is equivalent to (! some_state) & SOME_FLAG because logical negation has higher precedence than bitwise and. That is indeed suspicious, but the original code is not necessarily in error. In any case, it is more likely that the program is buggy in this regard than that any C implementation evaluated the original expression differently than the current standard requires, even prior to standardization.
Since the expressions (! some_state) & SOME_FLAG and !(some_state & SOME_FLAG) will sometimes evaluate to the same value -- especially if SOME_FLAG happens to expand to 1 -- it is also possible that even though they are inequivalent, their differences do not manifest during actual execution of the program.
While there was no standard before 1989, and thus compilers could do things as they wished, no compiler to my knowledge has ever done this; changing the meaning of operators wouldn't be a smart call if you want people to use your compiler.
There's very little reason to write an expression like (!foo & FLAG_BAR); the result is just !foo if FLAG_BAR is odd or always zero if it is even. What you've found is almost certainly just a bug.
It would not be possible for a legacy compiler to implement ! as bitwise negation, because such approach would produce incorrect results in situations when the value being negated is outside the {0, 0xFF...FF} set.
Standard requires the result of !x to produce zero for any non-zero value of x. Hence, applying ! to, say, 1 would yield 0xFF..FFFE, which is non-zero.
The only situation when the legacy code would have worked as intended is when SOME_FLAG is set to 1.
Let's start with the most interesting (and least obvious) part: gcc logically barks with -Wlogical-not-parentheses. What does this mean?
C has two different operators that have similar looking characters (but different behaviour and intended for very different purposes) - the & which is a bitwise AND, and && which is a boolean AND. Unfortunately this led to typos, in the same way that typing = when you meant == can cause problems, so some compilers (GCC) decided to warn people about "& without parenthesis used as a condition" (even though it's perfectly legal) to reduce the risk of typos.
Now...
You're showing code that uses & (and not showing code that uses &&). This implies that some_state is not a boolean and is number. More specifically it implies that each bit in some_state may be completely independent and unrelated.
For an example of this, let's pretend that we're implementing a Pacman game and need a nice compact way to store the map for each level. We decide that each tile in the map might be a wall or not, might be a collected dot or not, might be power pill or not, and might be a cherry or not. Someone suggests that this can be an array of bytes, like this (assuming the map is 30 tiles wide and 20 tiles high):
#define IS_WALL 0x01
#define HAS_DOT 0x02
#define HAS_POWER_PILL 0x04
#define HAS_CHERRY 0x08
uint8_t level1_map[20][30] = { ..... };
If we want to know if a tile happens to be safe to move into (no wall) we could do this:
if( level1_map[y][x] & IS_WALL == 0) {
For the opposite, if we want to know if a tile is a wall we could do any of these:
if( level1_map[y][x] & IS_WALL != 0) {
if( !level1_map[y][x] & IS_WALL == 0) {
if( level1_map[y][x] & IS_WALL == IS_WALL) {
..because it makes no difference which one it is.
Of course (to avoid the risk of typos) GCC might (or might not) warn about some of these.
How often you use bitwise operation "hacks" to do some kind of
optimization? In what kind of situations is it really useful?
Example: instead of using if:
if (data[c] >= 128) //in a loop
sum += data[c];
you write:
int t = (data[c] - 128) >> 31;
sum += ~t & data[c];
Of course assuming it does the same intended result for this specific situation.
Is it worth it? I find it unreadable. How often do you come across
this?
Note: I saw this code here in the chosen answers :Why is processing a sorted array faster than an unsorted array?
While that code was an excellent way to show what's going on, I usually wouldn't use code like that. If it had to be fast, there are usually even faster solutions, such as using SSE on x86 or NEON on ARM. If none of that is available, sure, I'll use it, provided it helps and it's necessary.
By the way, I explain how it works in this answer
Like Skylion, one thing I've used a lot is figuring out whether a number is a power of two. Think a while about how you'd do that.. then look at this: (x & (x - 1)) == 0 && x != 0
It's tricky the first time you see it, I suppose, but once you get used to it it's just so much simpler than any alternative that doesn't use bitmath. It works because subtracting 1 from a number means that the borrow starts at the rightmost end of the number and runs through all the zeroes, then stops at the first 1 which turns into a zero. ANDing that number with the original then makes the rightmost 1 zero. Powers of two only have one 1, which disappears, leaving zero. All other numbers will have at least one 1 left, except zero, which is a special case. A common variant doesn't test for zero, and is OK with treating it as power of two or knows that zero can't happen.
Similarly there are other things that you can easily do with bitmath, but not so easy without. As they say, use the right tool for the job. Sometimes bitmath is the right tool.
Bitwise operations are so useful that prof. Knuth wrote a book abot them: http://www.amazon.com/The-Computer-Programming-Volume-Fascicle/dp/0321580508
Just to mention a few simplest ones: int multiplication and division by a power of two (using left and right shift), mod with respect to a power of two, masking and so on. When using bitwise ops just be sure to provide sufficient comments about what's going on.
However, your example, data[c]>128 is not applicable IMO, just keep it that way.
But if you want to compute data[c] % 128 then data[c] & 0x7f is much faster (where & represents bitwise AND).
There are several instances where using such hacks may be useful. For instance, they can remove some Java Virtual Machine "Optimizations" such as branch predictors. I have found them useful only once in a few cases. The main one is multiplying by -1. If you are doing it hundreds of times across a massive array it is more efficient to simply flip the first bit, than to actually multiple. Another example I have used it is to know if a number is a power of 2 (since it's so easy to figure out in binary.) Basically, bit hacks are useful when you want to cheat. Here is a human analogy. If you have list of numbers and you need to know if they are greater than 29, You can automatically know if the first digit is larger than 3, then the whole thing is larger than 30 an vice versa. Bitwise operations simply allow you to perform similar cheats to binary.
I am new in AVR programming. I would like to control a variable (uint8_t received_msg) if it is equal to 0xFF. would it be correct to do:
if (!(received_msg ^ 0xFF))
or do I need to compare bit by bit
uint8_t test = 0;
test = received_msg ^ 0xFF
for (i =0; i<8; i++){
test = 0 & (1<<received_msg)
}
if(test==0)
If you want to know if a variable is equal to 0xff, just test for equality:
if (received_message == 0xff)
Your question had fairly little to do with the AVR but some mistaken ideas about how compilers and microcontrollers work. That's not a complaint that it's a bad question - any question that helps you learn is good!
(TLDR: "use bitwise operators" is only in contrast to AVR specific stuff, feel absolutely free to use all your normal operations.)
First, you've expressed what you want to do - an equality test - in English. The whole point of a programming language like C is to allow you to express computed operations in a fairly readable manner, so use the most obvious (and thus clear) translation of received_msg == 0xFF - it is the compiler's job to convert this into code for the specific computer (AVR), and even if it does a horrible job of it it will waste no more than a few microseconds. (It doesn't, but if you make the code convoluted enough it can fail to do an excellent job.)
Second, you've attempted to express the same operation - comparing every bit against a set value, and collecting the result to see if they were all equal - in two other manners. This gets tricky both to read and write, as is shown by the bugs in the second version, but more importantly the second version shows a misunderstanding of what C's bitwise operators do. Bitwise here means each bit of a value is processed independent of the other bits; they are still all processed. Therefore splitting it into a loop is not needed, and only makes the job of both programmer and compiler harder. The technique used to make bitwise operators only affect single bits, not to be confused with which they operate on, is known as masking; it relies on properties like "0 or n = n", "1 and n = n", and "0 xor n = n".
I'm also getting the impression this was based around the idea that a microcontroller like the AVR would be working on individual bits all the time. This is extremely rare, but frequently emulated by PLCs. What we do have is operations making single bit work less costly than on general purpose CPUs. For instance, consider "PORTB |= 1<<3". This can be read as a few fundamental operations:
v0 := 1 // load immediate
v1 := 3
v2 := v0 shiftleft v1 // shift left
v3 := PORTB // load I/O register
v4 := v3 or v2
PORTB := v4 // store back to I/O register
This interpretation would be an extremely reduced instruction set, where loads and stores never combine with ALU operations such as shift and or. You may even get such code out of the compiler if you ask it not to optimize at all. But since it's such a common operation for a microcontroller, the AVR has a single instruction to do this without spending registers on holding v0-v4:
SBI PORTB, 3 // (set bit in I/O register)
This brings us from needing two registers (from reusing vN which are no longer needed) and six instructions to zero registers and one instruction. Further gains are possible because once it's a single instruction, one can use a skip instead of a branch. But it relies on a few things being known, such as 1<<3 setting only a single, fixed bit, and PORTB being among the lowest 32 I/O registers. If the compiler did not know these things, it could never use the SBI instructions, and there was such a time. This is why we have the advice "use the bitwise operators" - you no longer need to write sbi(PORTB,PB3);, which is inobvious to people who don't know the AVR instruction set, but can now write PORTB |= 1<<3; which is standard C, and therefore clearer while being just as effective. Arguably better macro naming might make more readable code too, but many of these macros came along as typing shorthands instead - for instance _BV(x) which is equal to 1<<x.
Sadly some of the standard C formulations become rather tricky, like clearing bit N: port &= ~(1<<N); It makes a pretty good case for a "clear_bit(port, bit)" macro, like Arduino's digitalWrite. Some microcontrollers (such as 8051) provide specific addresses for single bit work, and some compilers provide syntax extensions such as port.3. I sometimes wonder why AVR Libc doesn't declare bitfields for bit manipulation. Pardon the rant. There also remain some optimizations the compiler doesn't know of, such as converting PORTB ^= x; into PINB = x; (which really looks weird - PIN registers aren't writable, so they used that operation for another function).
See also the AVR Libc manual section on bit manipulation, particularly "Porting programs that use the deprecated sbi/cbi macros".
You can also try useful switch(){ case } statement like :
#define OTHER_CONST_VALUE 0x19
switch(received_msg){
case 0xff:
do_this();
break;
case 0x0f:
do_that();
break;
case OTHER_CONST_VALUE:
do_other_thing();
break;
case 1:
case 2:
received_1_or_2();
break;
default:
received_somethig_else();
break;
}
this code will execute command depending on value of received_msg, it is important to place constant value after case word, and be careful with break statement it tells when jump off from { } block.
I'm unsure of what received_msg will be representing. If it is a numerical value, than by all means use a switch-case, if-else or other structure of comparison; no need for a bitmask.
However, if received_msg contains binary data and you only want to look at certain elements and exclude others, a bitmask would be the appropriate approach.
The classic problem of testing and setting individual bits in an integer in C is perhaps one the most common intermediate-level programming skills. You set and test with simple bitmasks such as
unsigned int mask = 1<<11;
if (value & mask) {....} // Test for the bit
value |= mask; // set the bit
value &= ~mask; // clear the bit
An interesting blog post argues that this is error prone, difficult to maintain, and poor practice. The C language itself provides bit level access which is typesafe and portable:
typedef unsigned int boolean_t;
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE !FALSE
typedef union {
struct {
boolean_t user:1;
boolean_t zero:1;
boolean_t force:1;
int :28; /* unused */
boolean_t compat:1; /* bit 31 */
};
int raw;
} flags_t;
int
create_object(flags_t flags)
{
boolean_t is_compat = flags.compat;
if (is_compat)
flags.force = FALSE;
if (flags.force) {
[...]
}
[...]
}
But this makes me cringe.
The interesting argument my coworker and I had about this is still unresolved. Both styles work, and I maintain the classic bitmask method is easy, safe, and clear. My coworker agrees it's common and easy, but the bitfield union method is worth the extra few lines to make it portable and safer.
Is there any more arguments for either side? In particular is there some possible failure, perhaps with endianness, that the bitmask method may miss but where the structure method is safe?
Bitfields are not quite as portable as you think, as "C gives no guarantee of the ordering of fields within machine words" (The C book)
Ignoring that, used correctly, either method is safe. Both methods also allow symbolic access to integral variables. You can argue that the bitfield method is easier to write, but it also means more code to review.
If the issue is that setting and clearing bits is error prone, then the right thing to do is to write functions or macros to make sure you do it right.
// off the top of my head
#define SET_BIT(val, bitIndex) val |= (1 << bitIndex)
#define CLEAR_BIT(val, bitIndex) val &= ~(1 << bitIndex)
#define TOGGLE_BIT(val, bitIndex) val ^= (1 << bitIndex)
#define BIT_IS_SET(val, bitIndex) (val & (1 << bitIndex))
Which makes your code readable if you don't mind that val has to be an lvalue except for BIT_IS_SET. If that doesn't make you happy, then you take out assignment, parenthesize it and use it as val = SET_BIT(val, someIndex); which will be equivalent.
Really, the answer is to consider decoupling the what you want from how you want to do it.
Bitfields are great and easy to read, but unfortunately the C language does not specify the layout of bitfields in memory, which means they are essentially useless for dealing with packed data in on-disk formats or binary wire protocols. If you ask me, this decision was a design error in C—Ritchie could have picked an order and stuck with it.
You have to think about this from the perspective of a writer -- know your audience. So there are a couple of "audiences" to consider.
First there's the classic C programmer, who have bitmasked their whole lives and could do it in their sleep.
Second there's the newb, who has no idea what all this |, & stuff is. They were programming php at their last job and now they work for you. (I say this as a newb who does php)
If you write to satisfy the first audience (that is bitmask-all-day-long), you'll make them very happy, and they'll be able to maintain the code blindfolded. However, the newb will likely need to overcome a large learning curve before they are able to maintain your code. They will need to learn about binary operators, how you use these operations to set/clear bits, etc. You're almost certainly going to have bugs introduced by the newb as he/she all the tricks required to get this to work.
On the other hand, if you write to satisfy the second audience, the newbs will have an easier time maintaining the code. They'll have an easier time groking
flags.force = 0;
than
flags &= 0xFFFFFFFE;
and the first audience will just get grumpy, but its hard to imagine they wouldn't be able to grok and maintain the new syntax. It's just much harder to screw up. There won't be new bugs, because the newb will more easily maintain the code. You'll just get lectures about how "back in my day you needed a steady hand and a magnetized needle to set bits... we didn't even HAVE bitmasks!" (thanks XKCD).
So I would strongly recommend using the fields over the bitmasks to newb-safe your code.
The union usage has undefined behavior according to the ANSI C standard, and thus, should not be used (or at least not be considered portable).
From the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (C99) standard:
Annex J - Portability Issues:
1 The following are unspecified:
— The value of padding bytes when storing values in structures or unions (6.2.6.1).
— The value of a union member other than the last one stored into (6.2.6.1).
6.2.6.1 - Language Concepts - Representation of Types - General:
6 When a value is stored in an object of structure or union type, including in a member
object, the bytes of the object representation that correspond to any padding bytes take
unspecified values.[42]) The value of a structure or union object is never a trap
representation, even though the value of a member of the structure or union object may be
a trap representation.
7 When a value is stored in a member of an object of union type, the bytes of the object
representation that do not correspond to that member but do correspond to other members
take unspecified values.
So, if you want to keep the bitfield ↔ integer correspondence, and to keep portability, I strongly suggest you to use the bitmasking method, that contrary to the linked blog post, it is not poor practice.
What it is about the bitfield approach that makes you cringe?
Both techniques have their place, and the only decision I have is which one to use:
For simple "one-off" bit fiddling, I use the bitwise operators directly.
For anything more complex - eg hardware register maps, the bitfield approach wins hands down.
Bitfields are more succinct to use
(at the expense of /slightly/ more
verbosity to write.
Bitfields are
more robust (what size is "int",
anyway)
Bitfields are usually just
as fast as bitwise operators.
Bitfields are very powerful when you
have a mix of single and multiple bit
fields, and extracting the
multiple-bit field involves loads of
manual shifts.
Bitfields are
effectively self-documenting. By
defining the structure and therefore
naming the elements, I know what it's
meant to do.
Bitfields also seamlessly handle structures bigger than a single int.
With bitwise operators, typical (bad) practice is a slew of #defines for the bit masks.
The only caveat with bitfields is to make sure the compiler has really packed the object into the size you wanted. I can't remember if this is define by the standard, so a assert(sizeof(myStruct) == N) is a useful check.
The blog post you are referring to mentions raw union field as alternative access method for bitfields.
The purposes blog post author used raw for are ok, however if you plan to use it for anything else (e.g. serialisation of bit fields, setting/checking individual bits), disaster is just waiting for you around the corner. The ordering of bits in memory is architecture dependent and memory padding rules vary from compiler to compiler (see wikipedia), so exact position of each bitfield may differs, in other words you never can be sure which bit of raw each bitfield corresponds to.
However if you don't plan to mix it you better take raw out and you will be safe.
Well you can't go wrong with structure mapping since both fields are accessable they can be used interchangably.
One benefit for bit fields is that you can easily aggregate options:
mask = USER|FORCE|ZERO|COMPAT;
vs
flags.user = true;
flags.force = true;
flags.zero = true;
flags.compat = true;
In some environments such as dealing with protocol options it can get quite old having to individually set options or use multiple parameters to ferry intermediate states to effect a final outcome.
But sometimes setting flag.blah and having the list popup in your IDE is great especially if your like me and can't remember the name of the flag you want to set without constantly referencing the list.
I personally will sometimes shy away from declaring boolean types because at some point I'll end up with the mistaken impression that the field I just toggled was not dependent (Think multi-thread concurrency) on the r/w status of other "seemingly" unrelated fields which happen to share the same 32-bit word.
My vote is that it depends on the context of the situation and in some cases both approaches may work out great.
Either way, bitfields have been used in GNU software for decades and it hasn't done them any harm. I like them as parameters to functions.
I would argue that bitfields are conventional as opposed to structs. Everyone knows how to AND the values to set various options off and the compiler boils this down to very efficient bitwise operations on the CPU.
Providing you use the masks and tests in the correct way, the abstractions the compiler provide should make it robust, simple, readable and clean.
When I need a set of on/off switches, Im going to continue using them in C.
In C++, just use std::bitset<N>.
It is error-prone, yes. I've seen lots of errors in this kind of code, mainly because some people feel that they should mess with it and the business logic in a totally disorganized way, creating maintenance nightmares. They think "real" programmers can write value |= mask; , value &= ~mask; or even worse things at any place, and that's just ok. Even better if there's some increment operator around, a couple of memcpy's, pointer casts and whatever obscure and error-prone syntax happens to come to their mind at that time. Of course there's no need to be consistent and you can flip bits in two or three different ways, distributed randomly.
My advice would be:
Encapsulate this ---- in a class, with methods such as SetBit(...) and ClearBit(...). (If you don't have classes in C, in a module.) While you're at it, you can document all their behaviour.
Unit test that class or module.
Your first method is preferable, IMHO. Why obfuscate the issue? Bit fiddling is a really basic thing. C did it right. Endianess doesn't matter. The only thing the union solution does is name things. 11 might be mysterious, but #defined to a meaningful name or enum'ed should suffice.
Programmers who can't handle fundamentals like "|&^~" are probably in the wrong line of work.
I nearly always use the logical operations with a bit mask, either directly or as a macro. e.g.
#define ASSERT_GPS_RESET() { P1OUT &= ~GPS_RESET ; }
incidentally your union definition in the original question would not work on my processor/compiler combination. The int type is only 16 bits wide and the bitfield definitions are 32. To make it slightly more portable then you would have to define a new 32 bit type that you could then map to the required base type on each target architecture as part of the porting exercise. In my case
typedef unsigned long int uint32_t
and in the original example
typedef unsigned int uint32_t
typedef union {
struct {
boolean_t user:1;
boolean_t zero:1;
boolean_t force:1;
int :28; /* unused */
boolean_t compat:1; /* bit 31 */
};
uint32_t raw;
} flags_t;
The overlaid int should also be made unsigned.
Well, I suppose that's one way of doing it, but I would always prefer to keep it simple.
Once you're used to it, using masks is straightforward, unambiguous and portable.
Bitfields are straightforward, but they are not portable without having to do additional work.
If you ever have to write MISRA-compliant code, the MISRA guidelines frown on bitfields, unions, and many, many other aspects of C, in order to avoid undefined or implementation-dependent behaviour.
When I google for "C operators", the first three pages are:
Operators in C and C++
http://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V40F_HTML/AQTLTBTE/DOCU_059.HTM
http://www.cs.mun.ca/~michael/c/op.html
..so I think that argument about people new to the language is a little silly.
Generally, the one that is easier to read and understand is the one that is also easier to maintain. If you have co-workers that are new to C, the "safer" approach will probably be the easier one for them to understand.
Bitfields are great, except that the bit manipulation operations are not atomic, and can thus lead to problems in multi-threaded application.
For example one could assume that a macro:
#define SET_BIT(val, bitIndex) val |= (1 << bitIndex)
Defines an atomic operation, since |= is one statement. But the ordinary code generated by a compiler will not try to make |= atomic.
So if multiple threads execute different set bit operations one of the set bit operation could be spurious. Since both threads will execute:
thread 1 thread 2
LOAD field LOAD field
OR mask1 OR mask2
STORE field STORE field
The result can be field' = field OR mask1 OR mask2 (intented), or the result can be field' = field OR mask1 (not intented) or the result can be field' = field OR mask2 (not intended).
I'm not adding much to what's already been said, except to emphasize two points:
The compiler is free to arrange bits within a bitfield any way it wants. This mean if you're trying to manipulate bits in a microcontroller register, or if you want to send the bits to another processor (or even the same processor with a different compiler), you MUST use bitmasks.
On the other hand, if you're trying to create a compact representation of bits and small integers for use within a single processor, bitfields are easier to maintain and thus less error prone, and -- with most compilers -- are at least as efficient as manually masking and shifting.
I'm working with embedded C for the first time. Although my C is rusty, I can read the code but I don't really have a grasp on why certain lines are the way the are. For example, I want to know if a variable is true or false and send it back to another application. Rather than setting the variable to 1 or 0, the original implementor chose 0xFF.
Is he trying to set it to an address space? or else why set a boolean variable to be 255?
0xFF sets all the bits in a char.
The original implementer probably decided that the standard 0 and 1 wasn't good enough and decided that if all bits off is false then all bits on is true.
That works because in C any value other than 0 is true.
Though this will set all bytes in a char, it will also work for any other variable type, since any one bit being set in a variable makes it true.
If you are in desperate need of memory, you might want to store 8 booleans in one byte (or 32 in a long, or whatever)
This can easily be done by using a flag mask:
// FLAGMASK = ..1<<n for n in 0..7...
FLAGMASK = 0x10; // e.g. n=4
flags &= ~FLAGMASK; // clear bit
flags |= FLAGMASK; // set bit
flags ^= FLAGMASK; // flip bit
flags = (flags & ~FLAGMASK) | (booleanFunction() & FLAGMASK); // clear, then maybe set
this only works when booleanFunction() returns 0 (all bits clear) or -1 (all bits set).
0xFF is the hex representation of ~0 (i.e. 11111111)
In, for example, VB and Access, -1 is used as True.
These young guys, what do they know?
In one of the original embedded languages - PL/M (-51 yes as in 8051, -85, -86, -286, -386) - there was no difference between logical operators (!, &&, || in C) and bitwise (~, &, |, ^). Instead PL/M has NOT, AND, OR and XOR taking care of both categories. Are we better off with two categories? I'm not so sure. I miss the logical ^^ operator (xor) in C, though. Still, I guess it would be possible to construct programs in C without having to involve the logical category.
In PL/M False is defined as 0. Booleans are usually represented in byte variables. True is defined as NOT False which will give you 0ffh (PL/M-ese for C's 0xff).
To see how the conversion of the status flag carry took place defore being stored in a byte (boolean wasn't available as a type) variable, PL/M could use the assembly instruction "sbb al,al" before storing. If carry was set al would contain 0ff, if it wasn't it would contain 0h. If the opposite value was required, PL/M would insert a "cmc" before the sbb or append a "not al" after (actually xor - one or the other).
So the 0xff for TRUE is a direct compatibility port from PL/M. Necessary? Probably not, unless you're unsure of your skills (in C) AND playing it super safe.
As I would have.
PL/M-80 (used for the 8080, 8085 and Z80) did not have support for integers or floats, and I suspect it was the same for PL/M-51. PL/M-86 (used for the 8086, 8088, 80188 and 80186) added integers, single precision floating point, segment:offset pointers and the standard memory models small, medium, compact and large. For those so inclined there were special directives to create do-it-yourself hybrid memory models. Microsoft's huge memory model was equivalent to intel's large. MS also sported tiny, small, compact, medium and large models.
Often in embedded systems there is one programmer who writes all the code and his/her idiosyncrasies are throughout the source. Many embedded programmers were HW engineers and had to get a system running as best they could. There was no requirement nor concept of "portability". Another consideration in embedded systems is the compiler is specific for the CPU HW. Refer to the ISA for this CPU and check all uses of the "boolean".
As others have said, it's setting all the bits to 1. And since this is embedded C, you might be storing this into a register where each bit is important for something, so you want to set them all to 1. I know I did similar when writing in assembler.
What's really important to know about this question is the type of "var". You say "boolean", but is that a C++/C99's bool, or is it (highly likely, being an embedded C app), something of a completely different type that's being used as a boolean?
Also adding 1 to 0xff sets it to 0( assuming unsigned char) and the checking might have been in a loop with an increment to break.
Here's a likely reason: 0xff is the binary complement of 0. It may be that on your embedded architecture, storing 0xff into a variable is more efficient than storing, say, 1 which might require extra instructions or a constant stored in memory.
Or perhaps the most efficient way to check the "truth value" of a register in your architecture is with a "check bit set" instruction. With 0xff as the TRUE value, it doesn't matter which bit gets checked... they're all set.
The above is just speculation, of course, without knowing what kind of embedded processor you're using. 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit? PIC, AVR, ARM, x86???
(As others have pointed out, any integer value other than zero is considered TRUE for the purposes of boolean expressions in C.)