Is reinterpret_cast bad when dealing with low-level byte manipulation? - c++

I'm writing a websocket server and I have to deal with masked data that I need to unmask.
The mask is unsigned char[4], and the data is a unsigned char* buffer as well.
I don't want to XOR byte by byte, I'd much rather XOR 4-bytes at a time.
uint32_t * const end = reinterpret_cast<uint32_t *>(data_+length);
for(uint32_t *i = reinterpret_cast<uint32_t *>(data_); i != end; ++i) {
*i ^= mask_;
}
Is there anything wrong with the use of reinterpret_cast in this situation?
The alternative would be the following code which isn't as clear and not as fast:
uint64_t j = 0;
uint8_t *end = data_+length;
for(uint8_t *i = data_; i != end; ++i,++j) {
*i ^= mask_[j % 4];
}
I'm all ears for alternatives, including ones dependent on c++11 features.

The are a few potential problems with the approach posted:
On some systems objects of a type bigger than char needs to be aligned properly to be accessible. A typical requirement for uint32_t is that the object is aligned to an address divisible by four.
If length / sizeof(uint32_t) != 0 the loop may never terminate.
Depending on the endianess of the system mask needs to contain different values. If mask is produced by *reinterpret_cast<uint32_t>(char_mask) of a suitable array this shouldn't be an array.
If these issues are taken care of, reinterpret_cast<...>(...) can be used in the situation you have. Reinterpreting the meaning of pointers is one of the reasons this operation is there and sometimes it is needed. I would create a suitable test case to verify that it works properly, though, to avoid having to hunt down problems when porting the code to a different platform.
Personally I would go with a different approach until profiling shows that it is too slow:
char* it(data);
if (4 < length) {
for (char* end(data + length - 4); it < end; it += 4) {
it[0] ^= mask_[0];
it[1] ^= mask_[1];
it[2] ^= mask_[2];
it[3] ^= mask_[3];
}
}
it != data + length && *it++ ^= mask_[0];
it != data + length && *it++ ^= mask_[1];
it != data + length && *it++ ^= mask_[2];
it != data + length && *it++ ^= mask_[3];
I'm definitely using a number of similar approaches in software which meant to be really faster and haven't found them to be a notable performance problem.

There's nothing specifically wrong with reinterpret_cast in this case. But, take care.
The 32-bit loop as it stands is incorrect, because it doesn't cater for the case where the payload isn't a multiple of 32 bits in size. Two possible solutions, I suppose:
replace the != with < in the for loop check (there's a reason why people use <, and it's not because they're dumb...) and do the trailing 1-3 bytes bytewise
arrange the buffer so that the size of the buffer for the payload part is a multiple of 32 bits, and just XOR the extra bytes. (Presumably the code checks the payload length when returning bytes to the caller, so this doesn't matter.)
Additionally, depending on how the code is structured you might also have to cope with misaligned data accesses for some CPUs. If you have an entire frame buffered, header and all, in a buffer that's 32-bit aligned, and if the payload length is <126 bytes or >65,535 bytes, then both the masking key and the payload will be misaligned.
For whatever it's worth, my server uses something like the first loop:
for(int i=0;i<n;++i)
payload[i]^=key[i&3];
Unlike the 32-bit option, this is basically impossible to get wrong.

Related

Writing a program for a computer that uses Litttle or Big endian. And have the same result [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Detecting endianness programmatically in a C++ program
(29 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
This question is about endian's.
Goal is to write 2 bytes in a file for a game on a computer. I want to make sure that people with different computers have the same result whether they use Little- or Big-Endian.
Which of these snippet do I use?
char a[2] = { 0x5c, 0x7B };
fout.write(a, 2);
or
int a = 0x7B5C;
fout.write((char*)&a, 2);
Thanks a bunch.
From wikipedia:
In its most common usage, endianness indicates the ordering of bytes within a multi-byte number.
So for char a[2] = { 0x5c, 0x7B };, a[1] will be always 0x7B
However, for int a = 0x7B5C;, char* oneByte = (char*)&a; (char *)oneByte[0]; may be 0x7B or 0x5C, but as you can see, you have to play with casts and byte pointers (bear in mind the undefined behaviour when char[1], it is only for explanation purposes).
One way that is used quite often is to write a 'signature' or 'magic' number as the first data in the file - typically a 16-bit integer whose value, when read back, will depend on whether or not the reading platform has the same endianness as the writing platform. If you then detect a mismatch, all data (of more than one byte) read from the file will need to be byte swapped.
Here's some outline code:
void ByteSwap(void *buffer, size_t length)
{
unsigned char *p = static_cast<unsigned char *>(buffer);
for (size_t i = 0; i < length / 2; ++i) {
unsigned char tmp = *(p + i);
*(p + i) = *(p + length - i - 1);
*(p + length - i - 1) = tmp;
}
return;
}
bool WriteData(void *data, size_t size, size_t num, FILE *file)
{
uint16_t magic = 0xAB12; // Something that can be tested for byte-reversal
if (fwrite(&magic, sizeof(uint16_t), 1, file) != 1) return false;
if (fwrite(data, size, num, file) != num) return false;
return true;
}
bool ReadData(void *data, size_t size, size_t num, FILE *file)
{
uint16_t test_magic;
bool is_reversed;
if (fread(&test_magic, sizeof(uint16_t), 1, file) != 1) return false;
if (test_magic == 0xAB12) is_reversed = false;
else if (test_magic == 0x12AB) is_reversed = true;
else return false; // Error - needs handling!
if (fread(data, size, num, file) != num) return false;
if (is_reversed && (size > 1)) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < num; ++i) ByteSwap(static_cast<char *>(data) + (i*size), size);
}
return true;
}
Of course, in the real world, you wouldn't need to write/read the 'magic' number for every input/output operation - just once per file, and store the is_reversed flag for future use when reading data back.
Also, with proper use of C++ code, you would probably be using std::stream arguments, rather than the FILE* I have shown - but the sample I have posted has been extracted (with only very little modification) from code that I actually use in my projects (to do just this test). But conversion to better use of modern C++ should be straightforward.
Feel free to ask for further clarification and/or explanation.
NOTE: The ByteSwap function I have provided is not ideal! It almost certainly breaks strict aliasing rules and may well cause undefined behaviour on some platforms, if used carelessly. Also, it is not the most efficient method for small data units (like int variables). One could (and should) provide one's own byte-reversal function(s) to handle specific types of variables - a good case for overloading the function with different argument types).
Which of these snippet do I use?
The first one. It has same output regardless of native endianness.
But you'll find that if you need to interpret those bytes as some integer value, that is not so straightforward. char a[2] = { 0x5c, 0x7B } can represent either 0x5c7B (big endian) or 0x7B5c (little endian). So, which one did you intend?
The solution for cross platform interpretation of integers is to decide on particular byte order for the reading and writing. De-facto "standard" for cross platform data is to use big endian.
To write a number in big endian, start by bit-shifting the input value right so that the most significant byte is in the place of the least significant byte. Mask all other bytes (technically redundant in first iteration, but we'll loop back soon). Write this byte to the output. Repeat this for all other bytes in order of significance.
This algorithm produces same output regardless of the native endianness - it will even work on exotic "middle" endian systems if you ever encounter one. Writing to little endian is similar, but in reverse order.
To read a big endian value, read the first byte of input, shift it left so that it goes to the place of most significant byte. Combine the shifted byte with the result (initially zero) using bitwise-or. Repeat with the next byte by shifting to the second most significant place and so on.
to know the Endianess of a computer?
To know endianness of a system, you can use std::endian in the upcoming C++20. Prior to that, you can use implementation specific macros from endian.h header. Or you can do a simple calculation like you suggest.
But you never really need to know the endianness of a system. You can simply use the algorithms that I described, which work on systems of all endianness without having to know what that endianness is.

Optimize check for a bit-vector being a proper subset of another?

I would like some help optimizing the most computationally intensive function of my program.
Currently, I am finding that the basic (non-SSE) version is significantly faster (up to 3x). I would thus request your help in rectifying this.
The function looks for subsets in unsigned integer vectors, and reports if they exist or not. For your convenience I have included the relevant code snippets only.
First up is the basic variant. It checks to see if blocks_ is a proper subset of x.blocks_. (Not exactly equal.) These are bitmaps, aka bit vectors or bitsets.
//Check for self comparison
if (this == &x)
return false;
//A subset is equal to or smaller.
if (no_bits_ > x.no_bits_)
return false;
int i;
bool equal = false;
//Pointers should not change.
const unsigned int *tptr = blocks_;
const unsigned int *xptr = x.blocks_;
for (i = 0; i < no_blocks_; i++, tptr++, xptr++) {
if ((*tptr & *xptr) != *tptr)
return false;
if (*tptr != *xptr)
equal = true;
}
return equal;
Then comes the SSE variant, which alas does not perform according to my expectations. Both of these snippets should look for the same things.
//starting pointers.
const __m128i* start = (__m128i*)&blocks_;
const __m128i* xstart = (__m128i*)&x.blocks_;
__m128i block;
__m128i xblock;
//Unsigned ints are 32 bits, meaning 4 can fit in a register.
for (i = 0; i < no_blocks_; i+=4) {
block = _mm_load_si128(start + i);
xblock = _mm_load_si128(xstart + i);
//Equivalent to (block & xblock) != block
if (_mm_movemask_epi8(_mm_cmpeq_epi32(_mm_and_si128(block, xblock), block)) != 0xffff)
return false;
//Equivalent to block != xblock
if (_mm_movemask_epi8(_mm_cmpeq_epi32(block, xblock)) != 0xffff)
equal = true;
}
return equal;
Do you have any suggestions as to how I may improve upon the performance of the SSE version? Am I doing something wrong? Or is this a case where optimization should be done elsewhere?
I have not yet added in the leftover calculations for no_blocks_ % 4 != 0, but there is little purpose in doing so until the performance increases, and it would only clutter up the code at this point.
There are three possibilities I see here.
First, your data might not suit wide comparisons. If there's a high chance that (*tptr & *xptr) != *tptr within the first few blocks, the plain C++ version will almost certainly always be faster. In that instance, your SSE will run through more code & data to accomplish the same thing.
Second, your SSE code may be incorrect. It's not totally clear here. If no_blocks_ is identical between the two samples, then start + i is probably having the unwanted behavior of indexing into 128-bit elements, not 32-bit as the first sample.
Third, SSE really likes it when instructions can be pipelined, and this is such a short loop that you might not be getting that. You can reduce branching significantly here by processing more than one SSE block at once.
Here's a quick untested shot at processing 2 SSE blocks at once. Note I've removed the block != xblock branch entirely by keeping the state outside of the loop and only testing at the end. In total, this moves things from 1.3 branches per int to 0.25.
bool equal(unsigned const *a, unsigned const *b, unsigned count)
{
__m128i eq1 = _mm_setzero_si128();
__m128i eq2 = _mm_setzero_si128();
for (unsigned i = 0; i != count; i += 8)
{
__m128i xa1 = _mm_load_si128((__m128i const*)(a + i));
__m128i xb1 = _mm_load_si128((__m128i const*)(b + i));
eq1 = _mm_or_si128(eq1, _mm_xor_si128(xa1, xb1));
xa1 = _mm_cmpeq_epi32(xa1, _mm_and_si128(xa1, xb1));
__m128i xa2 = _mm_load_si128((__m128i const*)(a + i + 4));
__m128i xb2 = _mm_load_si128((__m128i const*)(b + i + 4));
eq2 = _mm_or_si128(eq2, _mm_xor_si128(xa2, xb2));
xa2 = _mm_cmpeq_epi32(xa2, _mm_and_si128(xa2, xb2));
if (_mm_movemask_epi8(_mm_packs_epi32(xa1, xa2)) != 0xFFFF)
return false;
}
return _mm_movemask_epi8(_mm_or_si128(eq1, eq2)) != 0;
}
If you've got enough data and a low probability of failure within the first few SSE blocks, something like this should be at least somewhat faster than your SSE.
I seems that your problem is a memory bandwidth bounded problem:
Asymptotic you need about 2 operation for processing a pair of integer in memory scanned. There is not enough arithmetic complexity to get advantage of use more arithmetic throughput from CPU SSE instructions. In fact you CPU pass lot of time waiting for data transfers.
But using SSE instructions in your case induce a overall of instructions and resulting code is not well optimized by compiler.
There are some alternatives strategies to improve performance in bandwidth bounded problem:
Multi-thread hide access memory by concurrent arithmetic
operations in hyper-threading context.
Fine tuning of size of data load at time improve memory bandwidth.
Improve the pipe-line continuity by adding supplementary independents operations in a loop (scan two different sets of data at each step in your "for" loop)
Keep more data in cache or in registers (some iterations of your code may be need the same set of data many times)

C hack for storing a bit that takes 1 bit space?

I have a long list of numbers between 0 and 67600. Now I want to store them using an array that is 67600 elements long. An element is set to 1 if a number was in the set and it is set to 0 if the number is not in the set. ie. each time I need only 1bit information for storing the presence of a number. Is there any hack in C/C++ that helps me achieve this?
In C++ you can use std::vector<bool> if the size is dynamic (it's a special case of std::vector, see this) otherwise there is std::bitset (prefer std::bitset if possible.) There is also boost::dynamic_bitset if you need to set/change the size at runtime. You can find info on it here, it is pretty cool!
In C (and C++) you can manually implement this with bitwise operators. A good summary of common operations is here. One thing I want to mention is its a good idea to use unsigned integers when you are doing bit operations. << and >> are undefined when shifting negative integers. You will need to allocate arrays of some integral type like uint32_t. If you want to store N bits, it will take N/32 of these uint32_ts. Bit i is stored in the i % 32'th bit of the i / 32'th uint32_t. You may want to use a differently sized integral type depending on your architecture and other constraints. Note: prefer using an existing implementation (e.g. as described in the first paragraph for C++, search Google for C solutions) over rolling your own (unless you specifically want to, in which case I suggest learning more about binary/bit manipulation from elsewhere before tackling this.) This kind of thing has been done to death and there are "good" solutions.
There are a number of tricks that will maybe only consume one bit: e.g. arrays of bitfields (applicable in C as well), but whether less space gets used is up to compiler. See this link.
Please note that whatever you do, you will almost surely never be able to use exactly N bits to store N bits of information - your computer very likely can't allocate less than 8 bits: if you want 7 bits you'll have to waste 1 bit, and if you want 9 you will have to take 16 bits and waste 7 of them. Even if your computer (CPU + RAM etc.) could "operate" on single bits, if you're running in an OS with malloc/new it would not be sane for your allocator to track data to such a small precision due to overhead. That last qualification was pretty silly - you won't find an architecture in use that allows you to operate on less than 8 bits at a time I imagine :)
You should use std::bitset.
std::bitset functions like an array of bool (actually like std::array, since it copies by value), but only uses 1 bit of storage for each element.
Another option is vector<bool>, which I don't recommend because:
It uses slower pointer indirection and heap memory to enable resizing, which you don't need.
That type is often maligned by standards-purists because it claims to be a standard container, but fails to adhere to the definition of a standard container*.
*For example, a standard-conforming function could expect &container.front() to produce a pointer to the first element of any container type, which fails with std::vector<bool>. Perhaps a nitpick for your usage case, but still worth knowing about.
There is in fact! std::vector<bool> has a specialization for this: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector_bool
See the doc, it stores it as efficiently as possible.
Edit: as somebody else said, std::bitset is also available: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/bitset
If you want to write it in C, have an array of char that is 67601 bits in length (67601/8 = 8451) and then turn on/off the appropriate bit for each value.
Others have given the right idea. Here's my own implementation of a bitsarr, or 'array' of bits. An unsigned char is one byte, so it's essentially an array of unsigned chars that stores information in individual bits. I added the option of storing TWO or FOUR bit values in addition to ONE bit values, because those both divide 8 (the size of a byte), and would be useful if you want to store a huge number of integers that will range from 0-3 or 0-15.
When setting and getting, the math is done in the functions, so you can just give it an index as if it were a normal array--it knows where to look.
Also, it's the user's responsibility to not pass a value to set that's too large, or it will screw up other values. It could be modified so that overflow loops back around to 0, but that would just make it more convoluted, so I decided to trust myself.
#include<stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define BYTE 8
typedef enum {ONE=1, TWO=2, FOUR=4} numbits;
typedef struct bitsarr{
unsigned char* buckets;
numbits n;
} bitsarr;
bitsarr new_bitsarr(int size, numbits n)
{
int b = sizeof(unsigned char)*BYTE;
int numbuckets = (size*n + b - 1)/b;
bitsarr ret;
ret.buckets = malloc(sizeof(ret.buckets)*numbuckets);
ret.n = n;
return ret;
}
void bitsarr_delete(bitsarr xp)
{
free(xp.buckets);
}
void bitsarr_set(bitsarr *xp, int index, int value)
{
int buckdex, innerdex;
buckdex = index/(BYTE/xp->n);
innerdex = index%(BYTE/xp->n);
xp->buckets[buckdex] = (value << innerdex*xp->n) | ((~(((1 << xp->n) - 1) << innerdex*xp->n)) & xp->buckets[buckdex]);
//longer version
/*unsigned int width, width_in_place, zeros, old, newbits, new;
width = (1 << xp->n) - 1;
width_in_place = width << innerdex*xp->n;
zeros = ~width_in_place;
old = xp->buckets[buckdex];
old = old & zeros;
newbits = value << innerdex*xp->n;
new = newbits | old;
xp->buckets[buckdex] = new; */
}
int bitsarr_get(bitsarr *xp, int index)
{
int buckdex, innerdex;
buckdex = index/(BYTE/xp->n);
innerdex = index%(BYTE/xp->n);
return ((((1 << xp->n) - 1) << innerdex*xp->n) & (xp->buckets[buckdex])) >> innerdex*xp->n;
//longer version
/*unsigned int width = (1 << xp->n) - 1;
unsigned int width_in_place = width << innerdex*xp->n;
unsigned int val = xp->buckets[buckdex];
unsigned int retshifted = width_in_place & val;
unsigned int ret = retshifted >> innerdex*xp->n;
return ret; */
}
int main()
{
bitsarr x = new_bitsarr(100, FOUR);
for(int i = 0; i<16; i++)
bitsarr_set(&x, i, i);
for(int i = 0; i<16; i++)
printf("%d\n", bitsarr_get(&x, i));
for(int i = 0; i<16; i++)
bitsarr_set(&x, i, 15-i);
for(int i = 0; i<16; i++)
printf("%d\n", bitsarr_get(&x, i));
bitsarr_delete(x);
}

Replacing multiple chars at the same time

So in my code I have a series of chars which I want to replace with random data. Since rand can replace ints, I figured I could save some time by replacing four chars at once instead of one at a time. So basically instead of this:
unsigned char TXT[] = { data1,data2,data3,data4,data4,data5....
for (i = 34; i < flenght; i++) // generating the data to send.
TXT[i] = rand() % 255;
I'd like to do something like:
unsigned char TXT[] = { data1,data2,data3,data4,data4,data5....
for (i = 34; i < flenght; i+4) // generating the data to send.
TXT[i] = rand() % 4294967295;
Something that effect, but I'm not sure how to do the latter part. Any help you can give me is greatly appreciated, thanks!
That won't work. The compiler will take the result from rand() % big_number and chop off the extra data to fit it in an unsigned char.
Speed-wise, your initial approach was fine. The optimization you contemplated is valid, but most likely unneeded. It probably wouldn't make a noticeable difference.
What you wanted to do is possible, of course, but given your mistake, I'd say the effort to understand how right now far outweights the benefits. Keep learning, and the next time you run across code like this, you'll know what to do (and judge if it's necessary), look back on this moment and smile :).
You'll have to access memory directly, and do some transformations on your data. You probably want something like this:
unsigned char TXT[] = { data1,data2,data3,data4,data4,data5....
for (i = 34; i < flenght/sizeof(int); i+=sizeof(int)) // generating the data to send.
{
int *temp = (int*)&TXT[i]; // very ugly
*temp = rand() % 4294967295;
}
It can be problematic though because of alignment issues, so be careful. Alignment issues can cause your program to crash unexpectedly, and are hard to debug. I wouldn't do this if I were you, your initial code is just fine.
TXT[i] = rand() % 4294967295;
Will not work the way you expect it to. Perhaps you are expecting that rand()%4294967295 will generate a 4 byte integer(which you maybe interpreting as 4 different characters). The value that rand()%4294967295, produces will be type cast into a single char and will get assigned to only one of the index of TXT[i].
Though it's not quire clear as to why you need to make 4 assigning at the same time, one approach would be to use bit operators to obtain 4 different significant bytes of the number generated and those can then be assigned to the four different index.
There are valid answers just so much C does not care very much about what type it stores at which address. So you can get away with something like:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <limits.h>
char *arr;
int *iArr;
int main (void){
int i;
arr = malloc(100);
/* Error handling ommitted, yes that's evil */
iArr = (int*) arr;
for (i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
iArr[i] = rand() % INT_MAX;
}
for (i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
printf("iArr[%d] = %d\n", i, iArr[i]);
}
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
printf("arr[%d] = %c\n", i, arr[i]);
}
free(arr);
return 0;
}
In the end an array is just some contiguous block in memory. And you can interpret it as you like (if you want). If you know that sizeof(int) = 4 * sizeof(char) then the above code will work.
I do not say I recommend it. And the others have pointed out whatever happened the first loop through all the chars in TXT will yield the same result. One could think for example of unrolling a loop but really I'd not care about that.
The (int*) just alone is warning enough. It means to the compiler, do not think about what you think the type is just "believe" he programmer that he knows better.
Well this "know better" is probably the root of all evil in C programming....
unsigned char TXT[] = { data1,data2,data3,data4,data4,data5....
for (i = 34; i < flenght; i+4)
// generating the data to send.
TXT[i] = rand() % 4294967295;
This has a few issues:
TXT is not guaranteed to be memory-aligned as needed for the CPU to write int data (whether it works - perhaps relatively slowly - or not - e.g. SIGBUS on Solaris - is hardware specific)
the last 1-3 characters may be missed (even if you change i + 4 to i += 4 ;-P)
rand() returns an int anyway - you don't need to mod it with anything
you need to write your random data via an int* so you're accessing 4 bytes at a time and not simply slicing a byte off the end of the random data and overwriting every fourth single character
for stuff like this where you're dependent on the size of int, you should really write it in terms of sizeof(int) so it'll work even if int isn't 32 bits, or use a (currently sadly) non-Standard but common typedef such as int32_t (or on Windows I think it's __int32, or you can use a boost or other library header to get int32_t, or write your own typedef).
It's actually pretty tricky to align your text data: your code suggests you want int-sized slices from the 35th character... even if the overall character array is aligned properly for ints, the 35th character will not be.
If it really is always the 35th, then you can pad the data with a leading character so you're accessing the 36th (being a multiple of presumably 32-bit int size), then align the text to an 32-bit address (with a compiler-specific #pragma or using a union with int32_t). If the real code varies the character you start overwriting from, such that you can't simply align the data once, then you're stuck with:
your original character-at-a-time overwrites
non-portable unaligned overwrites (if that's possible and better on your system), OR
implementing code that overwrites up to three leading unaligned characters, then switches to 32-bit integer overwrite mode for aligned addresses, then back to character-by-character overwrites for up to three trailing characters.
That does not work because the generated value is converted to type of array element - char in this particular case. But you are free to interpret allocated memory in the manner you like. For example, you could convert it into array int:
unsigned char TXT[] = { data1,data2,data3,data4,data4,data5....
for (i = 34; i < flenght-sizeof(int); i+=sizeof(int)) // generating the data to send.
*(int*)(TXT+i) = rand(); // There is no need in modulo operator
for (; i < flenght; ++i) // generating the data to send.
TXT[i] = rand(); // There is no need in modulo operator either
I just want to complete solution with the remarks about modulo operator and handling of arrays not multiple of sizeof(int).
1) % means "the remainder when divided by", so you want rand() % 256 for a char, or else you will never get chars with a value of 255. Similarly for the int case, although here there is no point in doing a modulus operation anyway, since you want the entire range of output values.
2) rand usually only generates two bytes at a time; check the value of RAND_MAX.
3) 34 isn't divisible by 4 anyway, so you will have to handle the end case specially.
4) You will want to cast the pointer, and it won't work if it isn't already aligned. Once you have the cast, though, there is no need to account for the sizeof(int) in your iteration: pointer arithmetic automatically takes care of the element size.
5) Chances are very good that it won't make a noticeable difference. If scribbling random data into an array is really the bottleneck in your program, then it isn't really doing anything significiant anyway.

C/C++: Bitwise operators on dynamically allocated memory

In C/C++, is there an easy way to apply bitwise operators (specifically left/right shifts) to dynamically allocated memory?
For example, let's say I did this:
unsigned char * bytes=new unsigned char[3];
bytes[0]=1;
bytes[1]=1;
bytes[2]=1;
I would like a way to do this:
bytes>>=2;
(then the 'bytes' would have the following values):
bytes[0]==0
bytes[1]==64
bytes[2]==64
Why the values should be that way:
After allocation, the bytes look like this:
[00000001][00000001][00000001]
But I'm looking to treat the bytes as one long string of bits, like this:
[000000010000000100000001]
A right shift by two would cause the bits to look like this:
[000000000100000001000000]
Which finally looks like this when separated back into the 3 bytes (thus the 0, 64, 64):
[00000000][01000000][01000000]
Any ideas? Should I maybe make a struct/class and overload the appropriate operators? Edit: If so, any tips on how to proceed? Note: I'm looking for a way to implement this myself (with some guidance) as a learning experience.
I'm going to assume you want bits carried from one byte to the next, as John Knoeller suggests.
The requirements here are insufficient. You need to specify the order of the bits relative to the order of the bytes - when the least significant bit falls out of one byte, does to go to the next higher or next lower byte.
What you are describing, though, used to be very common for graphics programming. You have basically described a monochrome bitmap horizontal scrolling algorithm.
Assuming that "right" means higher addresses but less significant bits (ie matching the normal writing conventions for both) a single-bit shift will be something like...
void scroll_right (unsigned char* p_Array, int p_Size)
{
unsigned char orig_l = 0;
unsigned char orig_r;
unsigned char* dest = p_Array;
while (p_Size > 0)
{
p_Size--;
orig_r = *p_Array++;
*dest++ = (orig_l << 7) + (orig_r >> 1);
orig_l = orig_r;
}
}
Adapting the code for variable shift sizes shouldn't be a big problem. There's obvious opportunities for optimisation (e.g. doing 2, 4 or 8 bytes at a time) but I'll leave that to you.
To shift left, though, you should use a separate loop which should start at the highest address and work downwards.
If you want to expand "on demand", note that the orig_l variable contains the last byte above. To check for an overflow, check if (orig_l << 7) is non-zero. If your bytes are in an std::vector, inserting at either end should be no problem.
EDIT I should have said - optimising to handle 2, 4 or 8 bytes at a time will create alignment issues. When reading 2-byte words from an unaligned char array, for instance, it's best to do the odd byte read first so that later word reads are all at even addresses up until the end of the loop.
On x86 this isn't necessary, but it is a lot faster. On some processors it's necessary. Just do a switch based on the base (address & 1), (address & 3) or (address & 7) to handle the first few bytes at the start, before the loop. You also need to special case the trailing bytes after the main loop.
Decouple the allocation from the accessor/mutators
Next, see if a standard container like bitset can do the job for you
Otherwise check out boost::dynamic_bitset
If all fails, roll your own class
Rough example:
typedef unsigned char byte;
byte extract(byte value, int startbit, int bitcount)
{
byte result;
result = (byte)(value << (startbit - 1));
result = (byte)(result >> (CHAR_BITS - bitcount));
return result;
}
byte *right_shift(byte *bytes, size_t nbytes, size_t n) {
byte rollover = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < nbytes; ++i) {
bytes[ i ] = (bytes[ i ] >> n) | (rollover < n);
byte rollover = extract(bytes[ i ], 0, n);
}
return &bytes[ 0 ];
}
Here's how I would do it for two bytes:
unsigned int rollover = byte[0] & 0x3;
byte[0] >>= 2;
byte[1] = byte[1] >> 2 | (rollover << 6);
From there, you can generalize this into a loop for n bytes. For flexibility, you will want to generate the magic numbers (0x3 and 6) rather then hardcode them.
I'd look into something similar to this:
#define number_of_bytes 3
template<size_t num_bytes>
union MyUnion
{
char bytes[num_bytes];
__int64 ints[num_bytes / sizeof(__int64) + 1];
};
void main()
{
MyUnion<number_of_bytes> mu;
mu.bytes[0] = 1;
mu.bytes[1] = 1;
mu.bytes[2] = 1;
mu.ints[0] >>= 2;
}
Just play with it. You'll get the idea I believe.
Operator overloading is syntactic sugar. It's really just a way of calling a function and passing your byte array without having it look like you are calling a function.
So I would start by writing this function
unsigned char * ShiftBytes(unsigned char * bytes, size_t count_of_bytes, int shift);
Then if you want to wrap this up in an operator overload in order to make it easier to use or because you just prefer that syntax, you can do that as well. Or you can just call the function.