Finding trailing 0s in a binary number - c

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.

Related

Function for binary conversion

I am trying to convert a decimal value to binary using the function I wrote in C below. I cannot figure out the reason why it is printing 32 zeroes rather than the binary value of 2.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <limits.h>
int binaryConversion(int num){
int bin_buffer[32];
int mask = INT_MIN;
for(int i = 0; i < 32; i++){
if(num & mask){
bin_buffer[i] = 1;
mask >> 1;
}
else{
bin_buffer[i] = 0;
mask >> 1;
}
}
for(int j = 0; j < 32; j++){
printf("%d", bin_buffer[j]);
}
}
int main(){
binaryConversion(2);
}
Thanks
Two mistakes:
You use >> instead of >>=, so you're not actually ever changing mask.
You didn't declare mask as unsigned, so when you shift, it'll get sign-extended, which you don't want.
If you put a:
printf("%d %d\n", num, mask);
immediately inside your for loop, you'll see why:
2 -2147483648
2 -2147483648
2 -2147483648
2 -2147483648
:
2 -2147483648
The expression mask >> 1 does right shift the value of mask but doesn't actually assign it back to mask. I think you meant to use:
mask >>= 1;
On top of that (once you fix that problem), you'll see that the values in the mask are a bit strange because right-shifting a negative value can preserve the sign, meaning you will end up with multiple bits set.
You'd be better off using unsigned integers since the >> operator will act on them more in line with your expectations.
Additionally, there's little point in writing all those bits into a buffer just so you can print them out later. Unless you need to do some manipulation on the bits (and this appears to not be the case here), you can just output them directly as they're calculated (and get rid of the now unnecessary i variable).
So, taking all those points into account, you can greatly simplify your code such as with the following complete program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int binaryConversion(unsigned num) {
for (unsigned mask = (unsigned)INT_MIN; mask != 0; mask >>= 1)
putchar((num & mask) ? '1' : '0');
}
int main(void) {
binaryConversion(2);
putchar('\n');
}
And just one more note, the value of INT_MIN is not actually required to just have the top bit set. Because of the current allowance by C to handle ones' complement and sign-magnitude (as well as two's complement) for negative numbers, it possible for INT_MIN to have a value with multiple bits set (such as -32767).
There are moves afoot to remove these little-used encodings from C (C++20 has already flagged this) but, for maximum portability, you could opt instead for the following function:
int binaryConversion(unsigned int num) {
// Done once to set topBit.
static unsigned topBit = 0;
if (topBit == 0) {
topBit = 1;
while (topBit << 1 != 0) topBit <<= 1;
}
// Loop to process all bits.
for (unsigned mask = topBit; mask != 0; mask >>= 1)
putchar(num & mask ? '1' : '0');
}
This calculates the value with the top bit set the first time you call the function, irrespective of the vagaries of negative encodings. Just watch out if you call it concurrently in a threaded program.
But, as mentioned, this probably isn't necessary, the number of environments that use the other two encodings would be countable on the fingers of a very careless/unlucky industrial machine operator.
You already have your primary question answered regarding the use of >> rather than =>>. However, from a fundamental standpoint there is no need to buffer the 1 and 0 in an array of int (e.g. int bin_buffer[32];) and there is no need to use the variadic printf function to display int values if all you are doing is outputting the binary representation of the number.
Instead, all you need is putchar() to output '1' or '0' depending on whether any bit is set or clear. You can also make your output function a bit more useful by providing the size of the representation you want, e.g. a byte (8-bits), a word (16-bits), and so on.
For example, you could do:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
/** binary representation of 'v' padded to 'sz' bits.
* the padding amount is limited to the number of
* bits in 'v'. valid range: 0 - sizeof v * CHAR_BIT.
*/
void binaryConversion (const unsigned long v, size_t sz)
{
if (!sz) { fprintf (stderr, "error: invalid sz.\n"); return; }
if (!v) { while (sz--) putchar ('0'); return; }
if (sz > sizeof v * CHAR_BIT)
sz = sizeof v * CHAR_BIT;
while (sz--)
putchar ((v >> sz & 1) ? '1' : '0');
}
int main(){
fputs ("byte : ", stdout);
binaryConversion (2, 8);
fputs ("\nword : ", stdout);
binaryConversion (2, 16);
putchar ('\n');
}
Which allows you to set the number of bits you want displayed, e.g.
Example Use/Output
$ ./bin/binaryconversion
byte : 00000010
word : 0000000000000010
There is nothing wrong with your approach, but there may be a simpler way to arrive at the same output.
Let me know if you have further questions.
INT_MIN is a negative number so when you shifted to the right using >>, the most significant bit will still be 1 instead of zero and you will end up in mask=11111...111 all bits have value of 1. Also the mask value is not changing. better use >>= instead. You can try masking on 0x1 and shift the actual value of num instead of the mask like this.
int binaryConversion(int num) {
char bin_buffer[32 + 1]; //+1 for string terminator.
int shifted = num;
for (int i = 31; i >= 0; --i, shifted >>= 1) { //loop 32x
bin_buffer[i] = '0' + (shifted & 0x1);
}
bin_buffer[32] = 0; //terminate the string.
printf("%s", bin_buffer);
}

The neighbors in Gray code

Is there any algorithm that I can use to find the neighbors in Gray code?
For small numbers is just fine to write the entire table, but if I have a number like 010 110 is a bit to much to write the entire grey code table with 6 numbers.
Copied shamelessly from Wikipedia:
/*
The purpose of this function is to convert an unsigned
binary number to reflected binary Gray code.
The operator >> is shift right. The operator ^ is exclusive or.
*/
unsigned int binaryToGray(unsigned int num)
{
return (num >> 1) ^ num;
}
/*
The purpose of this function is to convert a reflected binary
Gray code number to a binary number.
*/
unsigned int grayToBinary(unsigned int num)
{
unsigned int mask;
for (mask = num >> 1; mask != 0; mask = mask >> 1)
{
num = num ^ mask;
}
return num;
}
And now, the requested code, using the mask to limit the number of bits to 6:
unsigned int nextGray(unsigned int num)
{
return binaryToGray((grayToBinary(num) + 1) & 0x3F);
}
unsigned int prevGray(unsigned int num)
{
return binaryToGray((grayToBinary(num) - 1) & 0x3F);
}
By definition, any perturbation with a single bit change is a valid adjacent Gray code. The problem is that for a six bit value there are six possible results and only two of them can be the correct one in any single coding.
The non-determinism gets worse as you increase the word size.
The fastest solution is to convert the gray code to regular binary, get the next value and convert the value back to gray code. Those operations are probably the fastest and the simplest you could get.
Otherwise, you can use the following operation:
unsigned next_gray(unsigned gray)
{
if (is_gray_odd(gray))
{
unsigned y = gray & -gray;
return gray ^ (y << 1);
}
else
{
// Flip rightmost bit
return gray ^ 1;
}
}
As you can see, you have to know the parity of the gray code in order to know which computation to apply. The parity of a regular gray code is the same as the parity of its number of set bits. Hence the following formula to compute is_gray_odd:
bool is_gray_odd(unsigned gray)
{
for (size_t i = CHAR_BIT * sizeof(int) / 2u ; i ; i >>= 1u)
{
gray ^= (gray >> i);
}
return (bool)(gray & 1u);
}
The function previous_gray will be the same as the function next_gray, except that you have to reverse the condition. Anyway, the back and forth conversion to regular may eventually be faster.
EDIT: if you are using GCC or Clang, you can use the compiler intrinsic __builtin_parity to compute the parity of a gray code (and possibly check for the existence of __GNUC__ and __clang__ to remain cross-platform):
bool is_gray_odd(unsigned gray)
{
return (bool) __builtin_parity(gray);
}
If you do so, computing the next/previous gray code can be faster than converting the gray code back and forth to binary on some architectures. Anyway, if you want speed, you better benchmark.
EDIT 2: If you only need the two neighbours and you don't care about which is the previous one and which is the next one, they you don't even care about the parity, you can get both of them like this:
unsigned neighbour1 = gray ^ 1;
unsigned neighbour2 = gray ^ ((gray & -gray) << 1);

Bit Rotation in C

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;
}

Fastest way to count number of bit transitions in an unsigned int

I'm looking for the fastest way of counting the number of bit transitions in an unsigned int.
If the int contains: 0b00000000000000000000000000001010
The number of transitions are: 4
If the int contains: 0b00000000000000000000000000001001
The number of transitions are: 3
Language is C.
int numTransitions(int a)
{
int b = a >> 1; // sign-extending shift properly counts bits at the ends
int c = a ^ b; // xor marks bits that are not the same as their neighbors on the left
return CountBits(c); // count number of set bits in c
}
For an efficient implementation of CountBits see http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#CountBitsSetParallel
Fastest depends on your scenario:
As you specified your datatype as constant sized (unsigned int), it is possible with lookup table. But when you need this operation only once the constant overhead to init the table is too big, and scanning+counting through the int is far faster despite.
I guess the overall best would be a combination: Look up table for a byte or word (256 or 64k entries is not so much), and then combine the bytes/words by their last/first bit.
In C/C++ I would do the following:
unsigned int Transitions(unsigned int value)
{
unsigned int result = 0;
for (unsigned int markers = value ^ (value >> 1); markers; markers = markers >> 1)
{
if (markers & 0x01) result++;
}
return result;
}
Here's the code using arithmetic shift + xor and Kernighan's method for bit counting:
int count_transitions(int x)
{
assert((-1 >> 1) < 0); // check for arithmetic shift
int count = 0;
for(x ^= (x >> 1); x; x &= x - 1)
++count;
return count;
}
What language?
I would loop 64 times and then bit shift your number to inspect of the bits, then store the previous bit and compare it to the current one. If it's different, incremember your count.
Ok, with transitions you mean if you walk through the string of 0-s and 1-s, you count each occurance that a 0 follows a 1 or a 1 follows a 0.
This is easy by shifting bits out and counting the changes:
transitions(n)
result = 0
prev = n mod 2
n = n div 2
while n<>0
if n mod 2 <> prev then
result++
prev = n mod 2
fi
n = n div 2
elihw
return result
you can replace the mod and div with shifts.

Bit reversal of an integer, ignoring integer size and endianness

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

Resources