Right shift with zeros at the beginning - c++

I'm trying to do a kind of left shift that would add zeros at the beginning instead of ones. For example, if I left shift 0xff, I get this:
0xff << 3 = 11111000
However, if I right shift it, I get this:
0xff >> 3 = 11111111
Is there any operation I could use to get the equivalent of a left shift? i.e. I would like to get this:
00011111
Any suggestion?
Edit
To answer the comments, here is the code I'm using:
int number = ~0;
number = number << 4;
std::cout << std::hex << number << std::endl;
number = ~0;
number = number >> 4;
std::cout << std::hex << number << std::endl;
output:
fffffff0
ffffffff
Since it seems that in general it should work, I'm interested as to why this specific code doesn't. Any idea?

This is how C and binary arithmetic both work:
If you left shift 0xff << 3, you get binary: 00000000 11111111 << 3 = 00000111 11111000
If you right shift 0xff >> 3, you get binary: 00000000 11111111 >> 3 = 00000000 00011111
0xff is a (signed) int with the positive value 255. Since it is positive, the outcome of shifting it is well-defined behavior in both C and C++. It will not do any arithmetic shifts nor any kind or poorly-defined behavior.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("%.4X %d\n", 0xff << 3, 0xff << 3);
printf("%.4X %d\n", 0xff >> 3, 0xff >> 3);
}
Output:
07F8 2040
001F 31
So you are doing something strange in your program because it doesn't work as expected. Perhaps you are using char variables or C++ character literals.
Source: ISO 9899:2011 6.5.7.
EDIT after question update
int number = ~0; gives you a negative number equivalent to -1, assuming two's complement.
number = number << 4; invokes undefined behavior, since you left shift a negative number. The program implements undefined behavior correctly, since it either does something or nothing at all. It may print fffffff0 or it may print a pink elephant, or it may format the hard drive.
number = number >> 4; invokes implementation-defined behavior. In your case, your compiler preserves the sign bit. This is known as arithmetic shift, and arithmetic right shift works in such a way that the MSB is filled with whatever bit value it had before the shift. So if you have a negative number, you will experience that the program is "shifting in ones".
In 99% of all real world cases, it doesn't make sense to use bitwise operators on signed numbers. Therefore, always ensure that you are using unsigned numbers, and that none of the dangerous implicit conversion rules in C/C++ transforms them into signed numbers (for more info about dangerous conversions, see "the integer promotion rules" and "the usual arithmetic conversions", plenty of good info about those on SO).
EDIT 2, some info from the C99 standard's rationale document V5.10:
6.5.7 Bitwise shift operators
The description of shift operators in K&R suggests that shifting by a
long count should force the left operand to be widened to long before
being shifted. A more intuitive practice, endorsed by the C89
Committee, is that the type of the shift count has no bearing on the
type of the result.
QUIET CHANGE IN C89
Shifting by a long count no longer coerces the shifted operand to
long. The C89 Committee affirmed the freedom in implementation granted
by K&R in not requiring the signed right shift operation to sign
extend, since such a requirement might slow down fast code and since
the usefulness of sign extended shifts is marginal. (Shifting a
negative two’s complement integer arithmetically right one place is
not the same as dividing by two!)

If you explicitly shift 0xff it works as you expected
cout << (0xff >> 3) << endl; // 31
It should be possible only if 0xff is in type of signed width 8 (char and signed char on popular platforms).
So, in common case:
You need to use unsigned ints
(unsigned type)0xff
right shift works as division by 2(with rounding down, if I understand correctly).
So when you have 1 as first bit, you have negative value and after division it's negative again.

The two kinds of right shift you're talking about are called Logical Shift and Arithmetic Shift. C and C++ use logical shift for unsigned integers and most compilers will use arithmetic shift for a signed integer but this is not guaranteed by the standard meaning that the value of right shifting a negative signed int is implementation defined.
Since you want a logical shift you need to switch to using an unsigned integer. You can do this by replacing your constant with 0xffU.

To explain your real code you just need the C++ versions of the quotes from the C standard that Lundin gave in comments:
int number = ~0;
number = number << 4;
Undefined behavior. [expr.shift] says
The value of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated
bits are zero-filled. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the
result is E1 × 2E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value
representable in the result type. Otherwise, if E1 has a signed type
and non-negative value, and E1×2E2 is representable in the result
type, then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is
undefined.
number = ~0;
number = number >> 4;
Implementation-defined result, in this case your implementation gave you an arithmetic shift:
The value of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has
an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a non-negative value,
the value of the result is the integral part of the quotient of
E1/2E2. If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting
value is implementation-defined
You should use an unsigned type:
unsigned int number = -1;
number = number >> 4;
std::cout << std::hex << number << std::endl;
Output:
0x0fffffff

To add my 5 cents worth here...
I'm facing exactly the same problem as this.lau! I've done some perfunctory research on this and these are my results:
typedef unsigned int Uint;
#define U31 0x7FFFFFFF
#define U32 0xFFFFFFFF
printf ("U31 right shifted: 0x%08x\n", (U31 >> 30));
printf ("U32 right shifted: 0x%08x\n", (U32 >> 30));
Output:
U31 right shifted: 0x00000001 (expected)
U32 right shifted: 0xffffffff (not expected)
It would appear (in the absence of anyone with detailed knowledge) that the C compiler in XCode for Mac OS X v5.0.1 reserves the MSB as a carry bit that gets pulled along with each shift.
Somewhat annoyingly, the converse is NOT true:-
#define ST00 0x00000001
#define ST01 0x00000002
printf ("ST00 left shifted: 0x%08x\n", (ST00 << 30));
printf ("ST01 left shifted: 0x%08x\n", (ST01 << 30));
Output:
ST00 left shifted: 0x40000000
ST01 left shifted: 0x80000000
I concur completely with the people above that assert that the sign of the operand has no bearing on the behaviour of the shift operator.
Can anyone shed any light on the specification for the Posix4 implementation of C? I feel a definitive answer may rest there.
In the meantime, it appears that the only workaround is a construct along the following lines;-
#define CARD2UNIVERSE(c) (((c) == 32) ? 0xFFFFFFFF : (U31 >> (31 - (c))))
This works - exasperating but necessary.

Just in case if you want the first bit of negative number to be 0 after right shift what we can do is to take the XOR of that negative number with INT_MIN that will make its msb zero, I understand that its not appropriate arithmetic shift but will get work done

Related

Left-shift bit operation for multiplying int-variable: Limited Range for multiplying. Arithmetic pattern after exceeding?

My actual concern is about this:
The left-shift bit operation is used to multiply values of integer variables quickly.
But an integer variable has a defined range of available integers it can store, which is obviously very logical due to the place in bytes which is reserved for it.
Depending on 16-bit or 32-bit system, it preserves either 2 or 4 bytes, which range the available integers from
-32,768 to 32,767 [for signed int] (2 bytes), or
0 to 65,535 [for unsigned int] (2 bytes) on 16-bit
OR
-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647 [for signed int] (4 bytes), or
0 to 4,294,967,295 [for unsigned int] (4 bytes) on 32-bit
My thought is, it should´t be able to multiply the values over the exact half of the maximum integer of the according range.
But what happens then to the values if you proceed the bitwise operation after the value has reached the integer value of the half of the max int value?
Is there an arithmetic pattern which will be applied to it?
One example (in case of 32-bit system):
unsigned int redfox_1 = 2147483647;
unsigned int redfox_2;
redfox_2 = redfox_1 << 1;
/* Which value has redfox_2 now? */
redfox_2 = redfox_1 << 2;
/* Which value has redfox_2 now? */
redfox_2 = redfox_1 << 3;
/* Which value has redfox_2 now? */
/* And so on and on */
/* Is there a arithmetic pattern what will be applied to the value of redfox_2 now? */
the value stored inside redfox_2 shouldn´t be able to go over 2.147.483.647 because its datatype is unsigned int, which can handle only integers up to 4,294,967,295.
What will happen now with the value of redfox_2?
And Is there a arithmetic pattern in what will happen to the value of redfox_2?
Hope you can understand what i mean.
Thank you very much for any answers.
Per the C 2018 standard, 6.5.7 4:
The result of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are filled with zeros. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of the result is E1 × 2E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value representable in the result type. If E1 has a signed type and nonnegative value, and E1 × 2E2 is representable in the result type, then that is the resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
So, for unsigned integer types, the bits are merely shifted left, and vacated bit positions are filled with zeroes. For signed integer types, the consequences of overflow are not defined by the C standard.
Many C implementations will, in signed shifts, slavishly shift the bits, including shifting value bits into the sign bit, resulting in various positive or negative values that a naïve programmer might not expect. However, since the behavior is not defined by the C standard, a C implementation could also:
Clamp the result at INT_MAX or INT_MIN (for int, or the corresponding maxima for the particular type).
Shift the value bits without affecting the sign bit.
Generate a trap.
Transform the program, when the undefined shift is recognized during compilation and optimization, in arbitrary ways, such as removing the entire code path that performs the shift.
If you really want to see the pattern, then just write a program that prints it:
#include <iostream>
#include <ios>
#include <bitset>
int main()
{
unsigned int redfox = 2147483647;
std::bitset<32> b;
for (int i = 0; i < 32; ++i)
{
redfox = redfox << 1;
b = redfox;
std::cout << std::dec << redfox << ", " << std::hex << redfox << ", " << b << std::endl;
}
}
This produces:
4294967294, fffffffe, 11111111111111111111111111111110
4294967292, fffffffc, 11111111111111111111111111111100
4294967288, fffffff8, 11111111111111111111111111111000
4294967280, fffffff0, 11111111111111111111111111110000
4294967264, ffffffe0, 11111111111111111111111111100000
4294967232, ffffffc0, 11111111111111111111111111000000
4294967168, ffffff80, 11111111111111111111111110000000
4294967040, ffffff00, 11111111111111111111111100000000
4294966784, fffffe00, 11111111111111111111111000000000
4294966272, fffffc00, 11111111111111111111110000000000
4294965248, fffff800, 11111111111111111111100000000000
4294963200, fffff000, 11111111111111111111000000000000
4294959104, ffffe000, 11111111111111111110000000000000
4294950912, ffffc000, 11111111111111111100000000000000
4294934528, ffff8000, 11111111111111111000000000000000
4294901760, ffff0000, 11111111111111110000000000000000
4294836224, fffe0000, 11111111111111100000000000000000
4294705152, fffc0000, 11111111111111000000000000000000
4294443008, fff80000, 11111111111110000000000000000000
4293918720, fff00000, 11111111111100000000000000000000
4292870144, ffe00000, 11111111111000000000000000000000
4290772992, ffc00000, 11111111110000000000000000000000
4286578688, ff800000, 11111111100000000000000000000000
4278190080, ff000000, 11111111000000000000000000000000
4261412864, fe000000, 11111110000000000000000000000000
4227858432, fc000000, 11111100000000000000000000000000
4160749568, f8000000, 11111000000000000000000000000000
4026531840, f0000000, 11110000000000000000000000000000
3758096384, e0000000, 11100000000000000000000000000000
3221225472, c0000000, 11000000000000000000000000000000
2147483648, 80000000, 10000000000000000000000000000000
0, 0, 00000000000000000000000000000000

Is a negative integer summed with a greater unsigned integer promoted to unsigned int?

After getting advised to read "C++ Primer 5 ed by Stanley B. Lipman" I don't understand this:
Page 66. "Expressions Involving Unsigned Types"
unsigned u = 10;
int i = -42;
std::cout << i + i << std::endl; // prints -84
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // if 32-bit ints, prints 4294967264
He said:
In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done. Converting a negative number to unsigned behaves exactly as if we had attempted to assign that negative value to an unsigned object. The value “wraps around” as described above.
But if I do something like this:
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
As you can see -10 is not converted to unsigned int. Does this mean a comparison occurs before promoting a signed integer to an unsigned integer?
-10 is being converted to a unsigned integer with a very large value, the reason you get a small number is that the addition wraps you back around. With 32 bit unsigned integers -10 is the same as 4294967286. When you add 42 to that you get 4294967328, but the max value is 4294967296, so we have to take 4294967328 modulo 4294967296 and we get 32.
Well, I guess this is an exception to "two wrongs don't make a right" :)
What's happening is that there are actually two wrap arounds (unsigned overflows) under the hood and the final result ends up being mathematically correct.
First, i is converted to unsigned and as per the wrap around behavior the value is std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9.
When this value is summed with u the mathematical result would be std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() - 9 + 42 == std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max() + 33 which is an overflow and we get another wrap around. So the final result is 32.
As a general rule in an arithmetic expression if you only have unsigned overflows (no matter how many) and if the final mathematical result is representable in the expression data type, then the value of the expression will be the mathematically correct one. This is a consequence of the fact that unsigned integers in C++ obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n (see bellow).
Important notice. According to C++ unsigned arithmetic does not overflow:
§6.9.1 Fundamental types [basic.fundamental]
Unsigned integers shall obey the laws of arithmetic modulo 2n where n
is the number of bits in the value representation of that particular
size of integer 49
49) This implies that unsigned arithmetic does not overflow because a
result that cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer
type is reduced modulo the number that is one greater than the largest
value that can be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type.
I will however leave "overflow" in my answer to express values that cannot be represented in regular arithmetic.
Also what we colloquially call "wrap around" is in fact just the arithmetic modulo nature of the unsigned integers. I will however use "wrap around" also because it is easier to understand.
i is in fact promoted to unsigned int.
Unsigned integers in C and C++ implement arithmetic in ℤ / 2nℤ, where n is the number of bits in the unsigned integer type. Thus we get
[42] + [-10] ≡ [42] + [2n - 10] ≡ [2n + 32] ≡ [32],
with [x] denoting the equivalence class of x in ℤ / 2nℤ.
Of course, the intermediate step of picking only non-negative representatives of each equivalence class, while it formally occurs, is not necessary to explain the result; the immediate
[42] + [-10] ≡ [32]
would also be correct.
"In the second expression, the int value -42 is converted to unsigned before the addition is done"
yes this is true
unsigned u = 42;
int i = -10;
std::cout << u + i << std::endl; // Why the result is 32?
Supposing we are in 32 bits (that change nothing in 64b, this is just to explain) this is computed as 42u + ((unsigned) -10) so 42u + 4294967286u and the result is 4294967328u truncated in 32 bits so 32. All was done in unsigned
This is part of what is wonderful about 2's complement representation. The processor doesn't know or care if a number is signed or unsigned, the operations are the same. In both cases, the calculation is correct. It's only how the binary number is interpreted after the fact, when printing, that is actually matters (there may be other cases, as with comparison operators)
-10 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFF6
42 IN 32bit BINARY is 0000002A
Adding them together, it doesn't matter to the processor if they are signed or unsigned, the result is: 100000020. In 32bit, the 1 at the start will be placed in the overflow register, and in c++ is just disappears. You get 0x20 as the result, which is 32.
In the first case, it is basically the same:
-42 in 32BIT binary is FFFFFFD6
10 IN 32bit binary is 0000000A
Add those together and get FFFFFFE0
FFFFFFE0 as a signed int is -32 (decimal). The calculation is correct! But, because it is being PRINTED as an unsigned, it shows up as 4294967264. It's about interpreting the result.

Why does shifting 0xff left by 24 bits result in an incorrect value?

I would like to shift 0xff left by 3 bytes and store it in a uint64_t, which should work as such:
uint64_t temp = 0xff << 24;
This yields a value of 0xffffffffff000000 which is most definitely not the expected 0xff000000.
However, if I shift it by fewer than 3 bytes, it results in the correct answer.
Furthermore, trying to shift 0x01 left by 3 bytes does work.
Here's my output:
0xff shifted by 0 bytes: 0xff
0x01 shifted by 0 bytes: 0x1
0xff shifted by 1 bytes: 0xff00
0x01 shifted by 1 bytes: 0x100
0xff shifted by 2 bytes: 0xff0000
0x01 shifted by 2 bytes: 0x10000
0xff shifted by 3 bytes: 0xffffffffff000000
0x01 shifted by 3 bytes: 0x1000000
With some experimentation, left shifting works up to 3 bits for each uint64_t up to 0x7f, which yields 0x7f000000. 0x80 yields 0xffffffff80000000.
Does anyone have an explanation for this bizarre behavior? 0xff000000 certainly falls within the 264 - 1 limits of uint64_t.
Does anyone have an explanation for this bizarre behavior?
Yes, type of operation always depend on operand types and never on result type:
double r = 1.0 / 2.0;
// double divided by double and result double assigned to r
// r == 0.5
double r = 1.0 / 2;
// 2 converted to double, double divided by double and result double assigned to r
// r == 0.5
double r = 1 / 2;
// int divided by int, result int converted to double and assigned to r
// r == 0.0
When you understand and remenber this you would not fall on this mistake again.
I suspect the behavior is compiler dependent, but I am seeing the same thing.
The fix is simple. Be sure to cast the 0xff to a uint64_t type BEFORE performing the shift. That way the compiler will handle it as the correct type.
uint64_t temp = uint64_t(0xff) << 24
Shifting left creates a negative (32 bit) number which then gets filled to 64 bits.
Try
0xff << 24LL;
Let's break your problem up into two pieces. The first is the shift operation, and the other is the conversion to uint64_t.
As far as the left shift is concerned, you are invoking undefined behavior on 32-bit (or smaller) architectures. As others have mentioned, the operands are int. A 32-bit int with the given value would be 0x000000ff. Note that this is a signed number, so the left-most bit is the sign. According to the standard, if you the shift affects the sign-bit, the result is undefined. It is up to the whims of the implementation, it is subject to change at any point, and it can even be completely optimized away if the compiler recognizes it at compile-time. The latter is not realistic, but it is actually permitted. While you should never rely on code of this form, this is actually not the root of the behavior that puzzled you.
Now, for the second part. The undefined outcome of the left shift operation has to be converted to a uint64_t. The standard states for signed to unsigned integral conversions:
If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the smallest unsigned value equal to the source value modulo 2n where n is the number of bits used to represent the destination type.
That is, depending on whether the destination type is wider or narrower, signed integers are sign-extended[footnote 1] or truncated and unsigned integers are zero-extended or truncated respectively.
The footnote clarifies that sign-extension is true only for two's-complement representation which is used on every platform with a C++ compiler currently.
Sign-extension means just that everything left of the sign bit on the destination variable will be filled with the sign-bit, which produces all the fs in your result. As you noted, you could left shift 0x7f by 3-bytes without this occurring, That's because 0x7f=0b01111111. After the shift, you get 0x7f000000 which is the largest signed int, ie the largest number that doesn't affect the sign bit. Therefore, in the conversion, a 0 was extended.
Converting the left operand to a large enough type solves this.
uint64_t temp = uint64_t(0xff) << 24

Merge char* arrays to uint16_t

I'm trying to merge a char*-array into a uint16_t. This is my code so far:
char* arr = new char[2]{0};
arr[0] = 0x0; // Binary: 00000000
arr[1] = 0xBE; // Binary: 10111110
uint16_t merged = (arr[0] << 8) + arr[1];
cout << merged << " As Bitset: " << bitset<16>(merged) << endl;
I was expecting merged to be 0xBE, or in binary 00000000 10111110.
But the output of the application is:
65470 As Bitset: 1111111110111110
In the following descriptions I'm reading bits from left to right.
So arr[1] is at the right position, which is the last 8 bits.
The first 8 bits however are set to 1, which they should not be.
Also, if I change the values to
arr[0] = 0x1; // Binary: 00000001
arr[1] = 0xBE; // Binary: 10111110
The output is:
0000000010111110
Again, arr[1] is at the right position. But now the first 8 bits are 0, whereas the last on of the first 8 should be 1.
Basically what I wan't to do is append arr[1] to arr[0] and interpret the new number as whole.
Perhaps char is signed type in your case, and you are left-shifting 0xBE vhich is interpreted as signed negative value (-66 in a likely case of two's complement).
It is undefined behavior according to the standard. In practice it is often results in extending the sign bit, hence leading ones.
3.9.1 Fundamental types....
It is implementationdefined
whether a char object can hold negative values.
5.8 Shift operators....
The value of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions; vacated bits are zero-filled. If E1 has an unsigned
type, the value of the result is E1 × 2E2, reduced modulo one more than the maximum value representable
in the result type. Otherwise, if E1 has a signed type and non-negative value, and E1×2E2 is representable
in the corresponding unsigned type of the result type, then that value, converted to the result type, is the
resulting value; otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
You need to assign to the wider type before shifting, otherwise you're shifting away† your high bits before they ever even hit the only variable here that's big enough to hold them.
uint16_t merged = arr[0];
merged <<= 8;
merged += arr[1];
Or, arguably:
const uint16_t merged = ((uint16_t)arr[0] << 8) + arr[1];
You also may want to consider converting through unsigned char first to avoid oddities with the high bit set. Try out a few different values in your unit test suite and see what happens.
† Well, your program has undefined behaviour from this out-of-range shift, so who knows what might happen!

Why is the binary equivalent calculation getting incorrect?

I wrote the following program to output the binary equivalent of a integer taking(I checked that int on my system is of 4 bytes) it is of 4 bytes. But the output doesn't come the right. The code is:
#include<iostream>
#include<iomanip>
using namespace std;
void printBinary(int k){
for(int i = 0; i <= 31; i++){
if(k & ((1 << 31) >> i))
cout << "1";
else
cout << "0";
}
}
int main(){
printBinary(12);
}
Where am I getting it wrong?
The problem is in 1<<31. Because 231 cannot be represented with a 32-bit signed integer (range −231 to 231 − 1), the result is undefined [1].
The fix is easy: 1U<<31.
[1]: The behavior is implementation-defined since C++14.
This expression is incorrect:
if(k & ((1<<31)>>i))
int is a signed type, so when you shift 1 31 times, it becomes the sign bit on your system. After that, shifting the result right i times sign-extends the number, meaning that the top bits remain 1s. You end up with a sequence that looks like this:
80000000 // 10000...00
C0000000 // 11000...00
E0000000 // 11100...00
F0000000 // 11110...00
F8000000
FC000000
...
FFFFFFF8
FFFFFFFC
FFFFFFFE // 11111..10
FFFFFFFF // 11111..11
To fix this, replace the expression with 1 & (k>>(31-i)). This way you would avoid undefined behavior* resulting from shifting 1 to the sign bit position.
* C++14 changed the definition so that shifting 1 31 times to the left in a 32-bit int is no longer undefined (Thanks, Matt McNabb, for pointing this out).
A typical internal memory representation of a signed integer value looks like:
The most significant bit (first from the right) is the sign bit and in signed numbers(like int) it represents whether the number is negative or not.
When you shift additional bits sign extension is performed to preserve the number's sign. This is done by appending digits to the most significant side of the number.(following a procedure dependent on the particular signed number representation used).
In unsigned numbers the first bit from the right is just the MSB of the represented number, thus when you shift additional bits no sign extension is performed.
Note: the enumeration of the bits starts from 0, so 1 << 31 replaces your sign bit and after that every bit shift operation to the left >> results in sign extension. (as pointed out by #dasblinkenlight)
So, the simple solution to your problem is to make the number unsigned (this is what U does in 1U << 31) before you start the bit manipulation. (as pointed out by #Yu Hao)
For further reading see signed number representations and two's complement.(as it's the most common)