Started working on screen capturing software specifically targeted for Windows. While looking through an example on MSDN for Capturing an Image I found myself a bit confused.
Keep in mind when I refer to the size of the bitmap that does not include headers and so forth associated with an actual file. I'm talking about raw pixel data. I would have thought that the formula should be (width*height)*bits-per-pixel. However, according to the example this is the proper way to calculate the size:
DWORD dwBmpSize = ((bmpScreen.bmWidth * bi.biBitCount + 31) / 32) * 4 * bmpScreen.bmHeight;
and or: ((width*bits-per-pixel + 31) / 32) * 4 * height
I don't understand why there's the extra calculations involving 31, 32 and 4. Perhaps padding? I'm not sure but any explanations would be quite appreciated. I've already tried Googling and didn't find any particularly helpful results.
The bits representing the bitmap pixels are packed in rows. The size of each row is rounded up to a multiple of 4 bytes (a 32-bit DWORD) by padding.
(bits_per_row + 31)/32 * 4 ensures the round up to the next multiple of 32 bits. The answer is in bytes, rather than bits hence *4 rather than *32.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_file_format
Under Bitmap Header Types you'll find the following:
The scan lines are DWORD aligned [...]. They must be padded for scan line widths, in bytes, that are not evenly divisible by four [...]. For example, a 10- by 10-pixel 24-bpp bitmap will have two padding bytes at the end of each scan line.
The formula
((bmpScreen.bmWidth * bi.biBitCount + 31) / 32) * 4
establishes DWORD-alignment (in bytes). The trailing * 4 is really the result of * 32 / 8, where the multiplication with 32 produces a value that's a multiple of 32 (in bits), and the division by 8 translates it back to bytes.
Although this does produce the desired result, I prefer a different implementation. A DWORD is 32 bits, i.e. a power of 2. Rounding up to a power of 2 can be implemented using the following formula:
(value + ((1 << n) - 1)) & ~((1 << n) - 1)
Adding (1 << n) - 1 adjusts the initial value to go past the next n-th power of 2 (unless it already is an n-th power of 2). (1 << n) - 1 evaluates to a value, where the n least significant bits are set, ~((1 << n) - 1) negates that, i.e. all bits but the n least significant bits are set. This serves as a mask to remove the n least significant bits of the adjusted initial value.
Applied to this specific case, where a DWORD is 32 bits, i.e. n is 5, and (1 << n) - 1 evaluates to 31. value is the raw scanline width in bits:
auto raw_scanline_width_in_bits{ bmpScreen.bmWidth * bi.biBitCount };
auto aligned_scanline_width_in_bits{ (raw_scanline_width_in_bits + 31) & ~31 };
auto aligned_scanline_width_in_bytes{ raw_scanline_width_in_bits / 8 };
This produces the same results, but provides a different perspective, that may be more accessible to some.
I am finding pow(2,i) where i can range: 0<=i<=100000.
Apart i have MOD=1000000007
powers[100000];
powers[0]=1;
for (i = 1; i <=100000; ++i)
{
powers[i]=(powers[i-1]*2)%MOD;
}
for i=100000 won't power value become greater than MOD ?
How do I store the power correctly?
The operation doesn't look feasible to me.
I am getting correct value up to i=70 max I guess.
I have to find sum+= ar[i]*power(2,i) and finally print sum%1000000007 where ar[i] is an additional array with some big numbers up to 10^5
As long as your modulus value is less than half the capacity of your data type, it will never be exceeded. That's because you take the previous value in the range 0..1000000006, double it, then re-modulo it bringing it back to that same range.
However, I can't guarantee that higher values won't cause you troubles, it's more mathematical analysis than I'm prepared to invest given the simple alternative. You could spend a lot of time analysing, checking and debugging, but it's probably better just to not allow the problem to occur in the first place.
The alternative? I'd tend to use the pre-generation method (having a program do the gruntwork up front, inserting the pre-generated values into an array easily and speedily accessible from your real program).
With this method, you can use tools that are well tested and known to work with massive values. Since this data is not going to change, it's useless calculating it every time your program starts.
If you want an easy (and efficient) way to do this, the following bash script in conjunction with bc and awk can do this:
#!/usr/bin/bash
bc >nums.txt <<EOF
i = 1;
for (x = 0;x <= 10000; x++) {
i % 1000000007;
i = i * 2;
}
EOF
awk 'BEGIN { printf "static int array[] = {" }
{ if (NR % 5 == 1) printf "\n ";
printf "%s, ",$0;
next
}
END { print "\n};" }' nums.txt
The bc part is the "meat" of the matter, it creates the large powers of two and outputs them modulo the number you provided. The awk part is simply to format them in C-style array elements, five per line.
Just take the output of that and put it into your code and, voila, there you have it, a compile-time-expensed array that you can use for fast lookup.
It takes only a second and a half on my box to generate the array and then you never need to do it again. You also won't have to concern yourself with the vagaries of modulo math :-)
static int array[] = {
1,2,4,8,16,
32,64,128,256,512,
1024,2048,4096,8192,16384,
32768,65536,131072,262144,524288,
1048576,2097152,4194304,8388608,16777216,
33554432,67108864,134217728,268435456,536870912,
73741817,147483634,294967268,589934536,179869065,
359738130,719476260,438952513,877905026,755810045,
511620083,23240159,46480318,92960636,185921272,
371842544,743685088,487370169,974740338,949480669,
898961331,797922655,595845303,191690599,383381198,
766762396,533524785,67049563,134099126,268198252,
536396504,72793001,145586002,291172004,582344008,
164688009,329376018,658752036,317504065,635008130,
270016253,540032506,80065005,160130010,320260020,
640520040,281040073,562080146,124160285,248320570,
:
861508356,723016705,446033403,892066806,784133605,
568267203,136534399,273068798,546137596,92275185,
184550370,369100740,738201480,476402953,952805906,
905611805,
};
If you notice that your modulo can be stored in int. MOD=1000000007(decimal) is equivalent of 0b00111011100110101100101000000111 and can be stored in 32 bits.
- i pow(2,i) bit representation
- 0 1 0b00000000000000000000000000000001
- 1 2 0b00000000000000000000000000000010
- 2 4 0b00000000000000000000000000000100
- 3 8 0b00000000000000000000000000001000
- ...
- 29 536870912 0b00100000000000000000000000000000
Tricky part starts when pow(2,i) is grater than your MOD=1000000007, but if you know that current pow(2,i) will be greater than your MOD, you can actually see how bits look like after MOD
- i pow(2,i) pow(2,i)%MOD bit representation
- 30 1073741824 73741817 0b000100011001010011000000000000
- 31 2147483648 147483634 0b001000110010100110000000000000
- 32 4294967296 294967268 0b010001100101001100000000000000
- 33 8589934592 589934536 0b100011001010011000000000000000
So if you have pow(2,i-1)%MOD you can do *2 actually on pow(2,i-1)%MOD till you're next pow(2,i) will be greater than MOD.
In example for i=34 you will use (589934536*2) MOD 1000000007 instead of (8589934592*2) MOD 1000000007, because 8589934592 can't be stored in int.
Additional you can try bit operations instead of multiplication for pow(2,i).
Bit operation same as multiplication for 2 is bit shift left.
I have the following problem I am unable to solve gracefully.
I have a data type that can take 3 possible values (0,1,2).
I have an array of 20 element of this data type.
As I want to encode the information on the least amount of memory, I did the following :
consider that each element can take up to 4 values (2 bits)
each char holds 8 bits, so I can put 4 times an element
5 char holds 40 bits, so I can store 20 elements.
I have done this and it works time.
However I'm interested evaluating the space gained by using the fact that my element can only take 3 values and not 4.
Every possible combination gives us 3 to the 20th power, which is 3,486,784,401. However 256 to the 4th power gives us 4,294,967,296 , which is greater. This means I could encode my data on 4 char .
Is there an generic method to do the 2nd idea here ? The 1st idea is simple to implement with bit mask / bit shifts. However since 3 values doesn't fit in an integer number of bits, I have no idea how to encode / decode any of these values into an array of 4 char.
Do you have any idea or reference on how it's done ? I think there must be a general method. If anything I'm interested about the feasability of this
edit : this could be simplified to : how to store 5 values from 0 to 2 into 1 byte only (as 256 >= 3^5 = 243)
You should be able to do what you said using 4 bytes. Assume that you store the 20 values into a single int32_t called value, here is how you would extract any particular element:
element[0] = value % 3;
element[1] = (value / 3) % 3;
element[2] = (value / 9) % 3;
...
element[19] = (value / 1162261467) % 3; // 1162261467 = 3 ^ 19
Or as a loop:
for (i=0;i<20;i++) {
element[i] = value % 3;
value /= 3;
}
To build value from element, you would just do the reverse, something like this:
value = 0;
for (i=19;i>=0;i--)
value = value * 3 + element[i];
There is a generic way to figure out how much bits you need:
If your data type has N different values, then you need log(N) / log(2) bits to store this value. For instance in your example, log(3) / log(2) equals 1.585 bits.
Of course in reality you will to pack a fixed amount of values in an integer number of bits, so you have to multiply this 1.585 with that amount and round up. For instance if you pack 5 of them:
1.585 × 5 = 7.925, meaning that 5 of your values just fit in one 8-bit char.
The way to unpack the values has been shown in JS1's answer. The generic formula for unpacking is element[i] = (value / (N ^ i) ) mod N
Final note, this is only meaningful if you really need to optimize memory usage. For comparison, here are some popular ways people pack these value types. Most of the time the extra space taken up is not a problem.
an array of bool: uses 8 bits to store one bool. And a lot of people really dislike the behavior of std::vector<bool>.
enum Bla { BLA_A, BLA_B, BLA_C}; an array or vector of Bla probably uses 32 bits per element (sizeof(Bla) == sizeof(int)).
I'm trying to determine if a bitstring, say 64 bit long, is at least 50% ones. I've searched around and looked at the great http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html, but I haven't found anything specifically for this problem.
I can split the string up into 8bit chunks, pre-calculate the number of 1s in each, and then find the result in 8 lookups and 7 additions.
Example of bytewise approach:
10001000 10000010 00111001 00001111 01011010 11001100 00001111 11110111
2 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 7 = 31
hence 0 dominates.
I just feel like there must be a better way given I just want to find the dominator. Maybe I'm just using the wrong name?
You can use the divide and concur solution here, which is easy adaptable to 32-bit. Or maybe just a popcnt instruction depending on your hardware. Then you just check if that value is less than 32, if so 0s dominate, otherwise 1s dominate.
The code from the link adapted to 64-bit and with the domination logic inserted:
(I've bit shifted right by an extra 5 bits at the end to check if the set bits is greater than 31 in the same shift)
int AtLeastHalfOnes(long long i) {
i = i - ((i >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555LL);
i = (i & 0x3333333333333333LL) + ((i >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333LL);
return (((i + (i >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0FLL) * 0x0101010101010101LL) >> 61;
}
I think it is better to use Stack data structure. When your input bit is 1, then push(1);. Otherwise pop(); from top of your stack. Finally if your stack is not empty, I think your problem solved.
I need some division algorithm which can handle big integers (128-bit).
I've already asked how to do it via bit shifting operators. However, my current implementation seems to ask for a better approach
Basically, I store numbers as two long long unsigned int's in the format
A * 2 ^ 64 + B with B < 2 ^ 64.
This number is divisible by 24 and I want to divide it by 24.
My current approach is to transform it like
A * 2 ^ 64 + B A B
-------------- = ---- * 2^64 + ----
24 24 24
A A mod 24 B B mod 24
= floor( ---- ) * 2^64 + ---------- * 2^64 + floor( ---- ) + ----------
24 24.0 24 24.0
However, this is buggy.
(Note that floor is A / 24 and that mod is A % 24. The normal divisions are stored in long double, the integers are stored in long long unsigned int.
Since 24 is equal to 11000 in binary, the second summand shouldn't change something in the range of the fourth summand since it is shifted 64 bits to the left.
So, if A * 2 ^ 64 + B is divisible by 24, and B is not, it shows easily that it bugs since it returns some non-integral number.
What is the error in my implementation?
The easiest way I can think of to do this is to treat the 128-bit numbers as four 32-bit numbers:
A_B_C_D = A*2^96 + B*2^64 + C*2^32 + D
And then do long division by 24:
E = A/24 (with remainder Q)
F = Q_B/24 (with remainder R)
G = R_C/24 (with remainder S)
H = S_D/24 (with remainder T)
Where X_Y means X*2^32 + Y.
Then the answer is E_F_G_H with remainder T. At any point you only need division of 64-bit numbers, so this should be doable with integer operations only.
Could this possibly be solved with inverse multiplication? The first thing to note is that 24 == 8 * 3 so the result of
a / 24 == (a >> 3) / 3
Let x = (a >> 3) then the result of the division is 8 * (x / 3). Now it remains to find the value of x / 3.
Modular arithmetic states that there exists a number n such that n * 3 == 1 (mod 2^128). This gives:
x / 3 = (x * n) / (n * 3) = x * n
It remains to find the constant n. There's an explanation on how to do this on wikipedia. You'll also have to implement functionality to multiply to 128 bit numbers.
Hope this helps.
/A.B.
You shouldn't be using long double for your "normal divisions" but integers there as well. long double doesn't have enough significant figures to get the answer right (and anyway the whole point is to do this with integer operations, correct?).
Since 24 is equal to 11000 in binary, the second summand shouldn't change something in the range of the fourth summand since it is shifted 64 bits to the left.
Your formula is written in real numbers. (A mod 24) / 24 can have an arbitrary number of decimals (1/24 is for instance 0.041666666...) and can therefore interfere with the fourth term in your decomposition, even once multiplied by 2^64.
The property that Y*2^64 does not interfere with the lower weight binary digits in an addition only works when Y is an integer.
Don't.
Go grab a library to do this stuff - you'll be incredibly thankful you chose to when debugging weird errors.
Snippets.org had a C/C++ BigInt library on it's site a while ago, Google also turned up the following: http://mattmccutchen.net/bigint/