When you and some data with a mask you get some result which is of the same size as the data/mask.
What I want to do, is to take the masked bits in the result (where there was 1 in the mask) and shift them to the right so they are next to each other and I can perform a CTZ (Count Trailing Zeroes) on them.
I didn't know how to name such a procedure so Google has failed me. The operation should preferably not be a loop solution, this has to be as fast operation as possible.
And here is an incredible image made in MS Paint.
This operation is known as compress right. It is implemented as part of BMI2 as the PEXT instruction, in Intel processors as of Haswell.
Unfortunately, without hardware support is it a quite annoying operation. Of course there is an obvious solution, just moving the bits one by one in a loop, here is the one given by Hackers Delight:
unsigned compress(unsigned x, unsigned m) {
unsigned r, s, b; // Result, shift, mask bit.
r = 0;
s = 0;
do {
b = m & 1;
r = r | ((x & b) << s);
s = s + b;
x = x >> 1;
m = m >> 1;
} while (m != 0);
return r;
}
But there is an other way, also given by Hackers Delight, which does less looping (number of iteration logarithmic in the number of bits) but more per iteration:
unsigned compress(unsigned x, unsigned m) {
unsigned mk, mp, mv, t;
int i;
x = x & m; // Clear irrelevant bits.
mk = ~m << 1; // We will count 0's to right.
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
mp = mk ^ (mk << 1); // Parallel prefix.
mp = mp ^ (mp << 2);
mp = mp ^ (mp << 4);
mp = mp ^ (mp << 8);
mp = mp ^ (mp << 16);
mv = mp & m; // Bits to move.
m = m ^ mv | (mv >> (1 << i)); // Compress m.
t = x & mv;
x = x ^ t | (t >> (1 << i)); // Compress x.
mk = mk & ~mp;
}
return x;
}
Notice that a lot of the values there depend only on m. Since you only have 512 different masks, you could precompute those and simplify the code to something like this (not tested)
unsigned compress(unsigned x, int maskindex) {
unsigned t;
int i;
x = x & masks[maskindex][0];
for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
t = x & masks[maskindex][i + 1];
x = x ^ t | (t >> (1 << i));
}
return x;
}
Of course all of these can be turned into "not a loop" by unrolling, the second and third ways are probably more suitable for that. That's a bit of cheat however.
You can use the pack-by-multiplication technique similar to the one described here. This way you don't need any loop and can mix the bits in any order.
For example with the mask 0b10101001 == 0xA9 like above and 8-bit data abcdefgh (with a-h is the 8 bits) you can use the below expression to get 0000aceh
uint8_t compress_maskA9(uint8_t x)
{
const uint8_t mask1 = 0xA9 & 0xF0;
const uint8_t mask2 = 0xA9 & 0x0F;
return (((x & mask1)*0x03000000 >> 28) & 0x0C) | ((x & mask2)*0x50000000 >> 30);
}
In this specific case there are some overlaps of the 4 bits while adding (which incur unexpected carry) during the multiplication step, so I've split them into 2 parts, the first one extracts bit a and c, then e and h will be extracted in the latter part. There are other ways to split the bits as well, like a & h then c & e. You can see the results compared to Harold's function live on ideone
An alternate way with only one multiplication
const uint32_t X = (x << 8) | x;
return (X & 0x8821)*0x12050000 >> 28;
I got this by duplicating the bits so that they're spaced out farther, leaving enough space to avoid the carry. This is often better than splitting into 2 multiplications
If you want the result's bits reversed (i.e. heca0000) you can easily change the magic numbers accordingly
// result: he00 | 00ca;
return (((x & 0x09)*0x88000000 >> 28) & 0x0C) | (((x & 0xA0)*0x04800000) >> 30);
or you can also extract the 3 bits e, c and a at the same time, leaving h separately (as I mentioned above, there are often multiple solutions) and you need only one multiplication
return ((x & 0xA8)*0x12400000 >> 29) | (x & 0x01) << 3; // result: 0eca | h000
But there might be a better alternative like the above second snippet
const uint32_t X = (x << 8) | x;
return (X & 0x2881)*0x80290000 >> 28
Correctness check: http://ideone.com/PYUkty
For a larger number of masks you can precompute the magic numbers correspond to those masks and store them in an array so that you can look them up immediately for use. I calculated those mask by hand but you can do that automatically
Explanation
We have abcdefgh & mask1 = a0c00000. Multiply it with magic1
........................a0c00000
× 00000011000000000000000000000000 (magic1 = 0x03000000)
────────────────────────────────
a0c00000........................
+ a0c00000......................... (the leading "a" bit is outside int's range
──────────────────────────────── so it'll be truncated)
r1 = acc.............................
=> (r1 >> 28) & 0x0C = 0000ac00
Similarly we multiply abcdefgh & mask2 = 0000e00h with magic2
........................0000e00h
× 01010000000000000000000000000000 (magic2 = 0x50000000)
────────────────────────────────
e00h............................
+ 0h..............................
────────────────────────────────
r2 = eh..............................
=> (r2 >> 30) = 000000eh
Combine them together we have the expected result
((r1 >> 28) & 0x0C) | (r2 >> 30) = 0000aceh
And here's the demo for the second snippet
abcdefghabcdefgh
& 1000100000100001 (0x8821)
────────────────────────────────
a000e00000c0000h
× 00010010000001010000000000000000 (0x12050000)
────────────────────────────────
000h
00e00000c0000h
+ 0c0000h
a000e00000c0000h
────────────────────────────────
= acehe0h0c0c00h0h
& 11110000000000000000000000000000
────────────────────────────────
= aceh
For the reversed order case:
abcdefghabcdefgh
& 0010100010000001 (0x2881)
────────────────────────────────
00c0e000a000000h
x 10000000001010010000000000000000 (0x80290000)
────────────────────────────────
000a000000h
00c0e000a000000h
+ 0e000a000000h
h
────────────────────────────────
hecaea00a0h0h00h
& 11110000000000000000000000000000
────────────────────────────────
= heca
Related:
How to create a byte out of 8 bool values (and vice versa)?
Redistribute least significant bits from a 4-byte array to a nibble
Related
I am trying to implement a function that blends two colors encoded with RGB565 using Alpha blending
Crgb565 = (1-a)Argb565 + a*Brgb565
Where a is the alpha parameter, and the alpha blending value of 0.0-1.0 is mapped to an unsigned char value on the range 0-32.
we can choose to use a five bit representation for a instead, thus restricting it to the range of 0-31 (effectively mapping to an alpha blending value of 0.0-0.96875).
Following code I am trying to implement, can you please suggest better way wrt less temp variable , memory optimization (number of multiplications and required memory accesses ),Is my logic for alpha bending is correct? I am not getting correct result/expected output, Seems like I am missing something, please review the code, Every suggest is appreciated, have some doubt based on alpha parameter. I have put my doubts in code comment section. Is there any way to shortening the alpha blending equations(division operation)?
=====================================================
unsigned short blend_rgb565(unsigned short A, unsigned short B, unsigned char Alpha)
{
unsigned short res = 0;
// Alpha converted from [0..255] to [0..31] (8 bit to 5 bit)
/* I want the alpha parameter (0-32), do i need to add something in Alpha before right shift?? */
Alpha = Alpha >> 3;
// Split Image A into R, G, B components
/*Do I need to take it as unsigned short or uint8_t also work fine ??*/
unsigned short A_r = A >> 11;
unsigned short A_g = (A >> 5) & ((1u << 6) - 1); // ((1u << 6) - 1) --> 00000000 00111111
unsigned short A_b = A & ((1u << 5) - 1); // ((1u << 5) - 1) --> 00000000 00011111
// Split Image B into R, G, B components
unsigned short B_r = B >> 11;
unsigned short B_g = (B >> 5) & ((1u << 6) - 1);
unsigned short B_b = B & ((1u << 5) - 1);
// Alpha blend components
/*Do I need to use 255(8 bit) instead of 32(5 bit), Why we are dividing by it , I have taken the ref from internet , but need little bit more clarification ??*/
unsigned short uiC_r = (A_r * Alpha + B_r * (32 - Alpha)) / 32;
unsigned short uiC_g = (A_g * Alpha + B_g * (32 - Alpha)) / 32;
unsigned short uiC_b = (A_b * Alpha + B_b * (32 - Alpha)) / 32;
// Pack result
res= (unsigned short) ((uiC_r << 11) | (uiC_g << 5) | uiC_b);
return res;
}
=====================
EDIT:
Adding method 2 ,is this approach is correct ?
Method 2:
// rrrrrggggggbbbbb
#define RB_MASK 63519 // 0b1111100000011111 --> hex :F81F
#define G_MASK 2016 // 0b0000011111100000 --> hex :07E0
#define RB_MUL_MASK 2032608 // 0b111110000001111100000 --> hex :1F03E0
#define G_MUL_MASK 64512 // 0b000001111110000000000 --> hex :FC00
unsigned short blend_rgb565(unsigned short A,unsigned short B,unsigned char Alpha) {
// Alpha converted from [0..255] to [0..31]
Alpha = Alpha >> 3
uint8_t beta = 32 - Alpha;
// so (0..32)*Alpha + (0..32)*beta always in 0..32
return (unsigned short)
(
(
( ( Alpha * (uint32_t)( A & RB_MASK ) + beta * (uint32_t)( B & RB_MASK )) & RB_MUL_MASK )
|
( ( Alpha * ( A & G_MASK ) + beta * ( B & G_MASK )) & G_MUL_MASK )
)
>> 5 // removing the alpha component 5 bit
);
}
It's possible to reduce the multiplies from 6 to 2 if you space out the RGB values into 2 32-bit integers before multiplying:
unsigned short blend_rgb565(unsigned short A, unsigned short B, unsigned char Alpha)
{
unsigned short res = 0;
// Alpha converted from [0..255] to [0..31] (8 bit to 5 bit)
Alpha = Alpha >> 3;
// Alpha = (Alpha + (Alpha >> 5)) >> 3; // map from 0-255 to 0-32 (if Alpha is unsigned short or larger)
// Space out A and B from RRRRRGGGGGGBBBBB to 00000RRRRR00000GGGGGG00000BBBBB
// 31 = 11111 binary
// 63 = 111111 binary
unsigned int A32 = (unsigned int)A;
unsigned int A_spaced = A32 & 31; // B
A_spaced |= (A32 & (63 << 5)) << 5; // G
A_spaced |= (A32 & (31 << 11)) << 11; // R
unsigned int B32 = (unsigned int)B;
unsigned int B_spaced = B32 & 31; // B
B_spaced |= (B32 & (63 << 5)) << 5; // G
B_spaced |= (B32 & (31 << 11)) << 11; // R
// multiply and add the alpha to give a result RRRRRrrrrrGGGGGGgggggBBBBBbbbbb,
// where RGB are the most significant bits we want to keep
unsigned int C_spaced = (A_spaced * Alpha) + (B_spaced * (32 - Alpha));
// remap back to RRRRRGGGGGBBBBB
res = (unsigned short)(((C_spaced >> 5) & 31) + ((C_spaced >> 10) & (63 << 5)) + ((C_spaced >> 16) & (31 << 11)));
return res;
}
You need to profile this to see if it is faster, it assumes that multiplications you save are slower than the extra bit-manipulations you replace them with.
can you please suggest better way wrt less temp variable
There is no advantage to remove temporary variables from the implementation. When you compile with optimizations turned on (e.g. -O2 or /O2) those temp variables will get optimized away.
Two adjustments I would make to your code:
Use uint16_t instead of unsigned short. For most platforms, it won't matter since sizeof(uint16_t)==sizeof(unsigned short), but it helps to be definitive.
No point in converting alpha from an 8-bit value to a 5-bit value. You'll get better accuracy with blending if you let alpha have the full range
Some of your bit-shifting looks weird. It might work. But I use a simpler approach.
Here's an adjustment to your implementation:
#include <stdint.h>
#define MAKE_RGB565(r, g, b) ((r << 11) | (g << 5) | (b))
uint16_t blend_rgb565(uint16_t a, uint16_t b, uint8_t Alpha)
{
const uint8_t invAlpha = 255 - Alpha;
uint16_t A_r = a >> 11;
uint16_t A_g = (a >> 5) & 0x3f;
uint16_t A_b = a & 0x1f;
uint16_t B_r = b >> 11;
uint16_t B_g = (b >> 5) & 0x3f;
uint16_t B_b = b & 0x1f;
uint32_t C_r = (A_r * invAlpha + B_r * Alpha) / 255;
uint32_t C_g = (A_g * invAlpha + B_g * Alpha) / 255;
uint32_t C_b = (A_b * invAlpha + B_b * Alpha) / 255;
return MAKE_RGB565(C_r, C_g, C_b);
}
But the bigger issue is that this function works on exactly one one pair of pixel colors. If you are invoking this function across an entire image or pair of images, the overhead of using the function call is going to be a major performance issue - even with compiler optimizations and inlining. So if you are calling this function row x col times, you should probably manually inline the code into your loop that is enumerating over every pixel on an image (or pair of images).
In the same vein as #samgak's answer, you can implement more efficiently on a 64 bits architecture by "post-masking", as follows:
rrrrrggggggbbbbb
Replicate to a long long (by shifting or mapping the long long to four shorts)
---------------- rrrrrggggggbbbbb rrrrrggggggbbbbb rrrrrggggggbbbbb
Mask out the useless bits
---------------- rrrrr----------- -----gggggg----- -----------bbbbb
Multiply by α
-----------rrrrr rrrrr----------- ggggggggggg----- ------bbbbbbbbbb
Mask out the low order bits
-----------rrrrr ---------------- gggggg---------- ------bbbbb-----
Pack
rrrrrgggggbbbbb
Another saving is possible by rewriting
(1 - α) X + α Y
as
X + α (Y - X)
(or X - α (X - Y) to avoid negatives). This spares a multiply (at the expense of a comparison).
Update:
The "saving" above cannot work because the negatives should be handled component-wise.
I finally figured out through trial and error how to clear multiple bits on an integer:
const getNumberOfBitsInUint8 = function(i8) {
let i = 0
while (i8) {
i++
i8 >>= 1
}
return i
}
const write = function(n, i, x) {
let o = 0xff // 0b11111111
let c = getNumberOfBitsInUint8(x)
let j = 8 - i // right side start
let k = j - c // right side remaining
let h = c + i
let a = x << k // set bits
let b = a ^ o // set bits flip
let d = o >> h // mask right
let q = d ^ b //
let m = o >> j // mask left
let s = m << j
let t = s ^ q // clear bits!
let w = n | a // set the set bits
let z = w & ~t // perform some magic https://stackoverflow.com/q/8965521/169992
return z
}
The write function takes an integer n, the index i to write bits into, and the bits value x.
Is there any way to simplify this function down and remove some steps? (Without just combining multiple operations on a single line)?
One possibility is to first clear the relevant part and then copy the bits into it:
return (n & ~((0xff << (8 - c)) >> i)) | (x << (8 - c - i))
assuming the left shift is restricted to 8 bits so the top bits disappear. Another is to use xor to find the bits to be changed :
return n ^ ((((n >> (8 - c - i)) ^ x) << (8 - c)) >> i)
I made what I think is a good fixed-point square root algorithm:
template<int64_t M, int64_t P>
typename enable_if<M + P == 32, FixedPoint<M, P>>::type sqrt(FixedPoint<M, P> f)
{
if (f.num == 0)
return 0;
//Reduce it to the 1/2 to 2 range (based around FixedPoint<2, 30> to avoid left/right shift branching)
int64_t num{ f.num }, faux_half{ 1 << 29 };
ptrdiff_t mag{ 0 };
while (num < (faux_half)) {
num <<= 2;
++mag;
}
int64_t res = (M % 2 == 0 ? SQRT_32_EVEN_LOOKUP : SQRT_32_ODD_LOOKUP)[(num >> (30 - 4)) - (1LL << 3)];
res >>= M / 2 + mag - 1; //Finish making an excellent guess
for (int i = 0; i < 2; ++i)
// \ | /
// \ | /
// _| V L
res = (res + (int64_t(f.num) << P) / res) >> 1; //Use Newton's method to improve greatly on guess
// 7 A r
// / | \
// / | \
// The Infamous Time Eater
return FixedPoint<M, P>(res, true);
}
However, after profiling (in release mode) I found out that the division here takes up 83% of the time this algorithm spends. I can speed it up 6x by replacing the division with multiplication, but that's just wrong. I found out that integer division is much slower than multiplication, unfortunately. Is there any way to optimize this?
In case this table is necessary.
const array<int32_t, 24> SQRT_32_EVEN_LOOKUP = {
0x2d413ccd, //magic numbers calculated by taking 0.5 + 0.5 * i / 8 from i = 0 to 23, multiplying by 2^30, and converting to hex
0x30000000,
0x3298b076,
0x3510e528,
0x376cf5d1,
0x39b05689,
0x3bddd423,
0x3df7bd63,
0x40000000,
0x41f83d9b,
0x43e1db33,
0x45be0cd2,
0x478dde6e,
0x49523ae4,
0x4b0bf165,
0x4cbbb9d6,
0x4e623850,
0x50000000,
0x5195957c,
0x532370b9,
0x54a9fea7,
0x5629a293,
0x57a2b749,
0x59159016
};
SQRT_32_ODD_LOOKUP is just SQRT_32_EVEN_LOOKUP divided by sqrt(2).
Reinventing the wheel, really, and not in a good way. The correct solution is to calculate 1/sqrt(x) using NR, and then multiply once to get x/sqrt(x) - just check for x==0 up front.
The reason why this is so much better is that the NR step for y=1/sqrt(x) is just y = (3-x*y*y)*y/2. That's all straightforward multiplication.
I'm working in C++ with an array of unsigned char representing pixels in an image. Each pixel has 3 channel (R,G,B). The image is represented linearly, sort of like
RGBRGBRGBRGB.....
How do I split each of the R,G and B, into separate arrays efficiently?
I tried:
for(int pos = 0; pos < srcWidth * srcHeight; pos++) {
int rgbPos = pos * 3;
splitChannels[0][pos] = rgbSrcData[rgbPos];
splitChannels[1][pos] = rgbSrcData[rgbPos + 1];
splitChannels[2][pos] = rgbSrcData[rgbPos + 2];
}
But this is surprisingly slow.
Thanks!
My attempt: load and store the bytes four by four. Byte scrambling will be tedious but possibly throughput will improve.
// Load 4 interleaved pixels
unsigned int RGB0= ((int*)rgbSrcData)[i];
unsigned int RGB1= ((int*)rgbSrcData)[i + 1];
unsigned int RGB2= ((int*)rgbSrcData)[i + 2];
// Rearrange and store 4 unpacked pixels
((int*)splitChannels[0])[j]=
(RGB0 & 0xFF) | (RGB0 >> 24) | (RGB1 & 0xFF0000) | ((RGB2 & 0xFF00) << 16);
((int*)splitChannels[1])[j]=
((RGB0 & 0xFF00) >> 8) | (RGB1 & 0xFF) | (RGB1 >> 24) | (RGB2 & 0xFF0000) >> 16;
((int*)splitChannels[2])[j]=
((RGB0 & 0xFF0000) >> 16) | (RGB1 & 0xFF00) | ((RGB2 & 0xFF) >> 16) | (RGB2 & 0xFF000000);
(CAUTION: not unchecked !) A shift-only version is also possible.
An SSE solution would be more complex (the stride 3 does not get along with powers of 2).
A great technique to use to make it run faster is loop unwinding.
You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_unwinding
I got an assignment today at my faculty (Mathematics Faculty of Belgrade, Serbia) which says:
1) Write a program that for two given integers x and y, inverts in integer x those bits that match the corresponding bits in y, while the rest of the bits remain the same.
For example:
x = 1001110110101
y = 1100010100011
x' = 0011101011100
I managed to write a program that does that, but I am a little insecure about the quality of my solution. Please, if you have time, check out the code and tell me how I could improve it.
int x, y, bitnum;
int z = 0;
unsigned int mask;
bitnum = sizeof(int) * 8;
mask = 1 << bitnum - 1;
printf("Unesi x i y: ");
scanf("%d%d", &x, &y);
while (mask > 1) {
if ( (((x & mask) == 0) && ((y & mask) == 0)) ||
((x & mask) && ((y & mask) == 0)) )
z += 1;
z <<= 1;
mask >>= 1;
} /* <-- THAT'S HOW STUPID PEOPLE SOLVE PROBLEMS... WITH HAMMER! */
z = y~; /* <-- THAT'S HOW SMART PEOPLE SOLVE PROBLEMS... WITH ONE LINE */
Everything works correctly, for x = 423 and y = 324 for example, I get z = -344, which is correct. Also, bit prints match I would just like to know if there is a better way to do this.
Thanks.
If you take a look at your x/y/x' example, it must strike you that x' is a complement to y. And indeed it's like that.
x y x'
--------
1 1 0
0 0 1
1 0 1
0 1 0
Spoiler (hover your mouse over block below, if you want to see a solution):
For bits that match, you invert bit in x, but as it is the same as bit in y, it's the same as inverting bit in y. When they do not match, you keep the bit from x, what is already inversion of bit in y on its own. I hope you can see the one-line solution already yourself: x' = ~y;
//Try with the next code:
unsigned int mask1, mask2, mask3, answ;
mask1 = x & y; // identify bits with 1 that match
mask2 = ~x & ~y; // identify bits with 0 that match
mask3 = mask1 | mask2; // identify bits with 0 or 1 that match
answ = x ^ m3; // Change identified bits