Swapping bits at a given point between two bytes - bit-manipulation

Let's say I have these two numbers:
x = 0xB7
y = 0xD9
Their binary representations are:
x = 1011 0111
y = 1101 1001
Now I want to crossover (GA) at a given point, say from position 4 onwards.
The expected result should be:
x = 1011 1001
y = 1101 0111
Bitwise, how can I achieve this?

I would just use bitwise operators:
t = (x & 0x0f)
x = (x & 0xf0) | (y & 0x0f)
y = (y & 0xf0) | t
That would work for that specific case. In order to make it more adaptable, I'd put it in a function, something like (pseudo-code, with &, | and ! representing bitwise "and", "or", and "not" respectively):
def swapBits (x, y, s, e):
lookup = [255,127,63,31,15,7,3,1]
mask = lookup[s] & !lookup[e]
t = x & mask
x = (x & !mask) | (y & mask)
y = (y & !mask) | t
return (x,y)
The lookup values allow you to specify which bits to swap. Let's take the values xxxxxxxx for x and yyyyyyyy for y along with start bit s of 2 and end bit e of 6 (bit numbers start at zero on the left in this scenario):
x y s e t mask !mask execute
-------- -------- - - -------- -------- -------- -------
xxxxxxxx yyyyyyyy 2 6 starting point
00111111 mask = lookup[2](00111111)
00111100 & !lookup[6](11111100)
00xxxx00 t = x & mask
xx0000xx x = x & !mask(11000011)
xxyyyyxx | y & mask(00111100)
yy0000yy y = y & !mask(11000011)
yyxxxxyy | t(00xxxx00)

If a bit position is the same in both values, no change is needed in either. If it's opposite, they both need to invert.
XOR with 1 flips a bit; XOR with 0 is a no-op.
So what we want is a value that has a 1 everywhere there's a bit-difference between the inputs, and a 0 everywhere else. That's exactly what a XOR b does.
Simply mask this bit-difference to only keep the differences in the bits we want to swap, and we have a bit-swap in 3 XORs + 1 AND.
Your mask is (1UL << position) -1. One less than a power of 2 has all the bits below that set. Or more generally with a high and low position for your bit-range: (1UL << highpos) - (1UL << lowpos). Whether a lookup-table is faster than bit-set / sub depends on the compiler and hardware. (See #PaxDiablo's answer for the LUT suggestion).
// Portable C:
//static inline
void swapBits_char(unsigned char *A, unsigned char *B)
{
const unsigned highpos = 4, lowpos=0; // function args if you like
const unsigned char mask = (1UL << highpos) - (1UL << lowpos);
unsigned char tmpA = *A, tmpB = *B; // read into locals in case A==B
unsigned char bitdiff = tmpA ^ tmpB;
bitdiff &= mask; // clear all but the selected bits
*A = tmpA ^ bitdiff; // flip bits that differed
*B = tmpB ^ bitdiff;
}
//static inline
void swapBit_uint(unsigned *A, unsigned *B, unsigned mask)
{
unsigned tmpA = *A, tmpB = *B;
unsigned bitdiff = tmpA ^ tmpB;
bitdiff &= mask; // clear all but the selected bits
*A = tmpA ^ bitdiff;
*B = tmpB ^ bitdiff;
}
(Godbolt compiler explorer with gcc for x86-64 and ARM)
This is not an xor-swap. It does use temporary storage. As #chux's answer on a near-duplicate question demonstrates, a masked xor-swap requires 3 AND operations as well as 3 XOR. (And defeats the only benefit of XOR-swap by requiring a temporary register or other storage for the & results.) This answer is a modified copy of my answer on that other question.
This version only requires 1 AND. Also, the last two XORs are independent of each other, so total latency from inputs to both outputs is only 3 operations. (Typically 3 cycles).
For an x86 asm example of this, see this code-golf Exchange capitalization of two strings in 14 bytes of x86-64 machine code (with commented asm source)

Swapping individual bits with XOR
unsigned int i, j; // positions of bit sequences to swap
unsigned int n; // number of consecutive bits in each sequence
unsigned int b; // bits to swap reside in b
unsigned int r; // bit-swapped result goes here
unsigned int x = ((b >> i) ^ (b >> j)) & ((1U << n) - 1); // XOR temporary
r = b ^ ((x << i) | (x << j));

Related

Convert every 5 bits into integer values in C++

Firstly, if anyone has a better title for me, let me know.
Here is an example of the process I am trying to automate with C++
I have an array of values that appear in this format:
9C07 9385 9BC7 00 9BC3 9BC7 9385
I need to convert them to binary and then convert every 5 bits to decimal like so with the last bit being a flag:
I'll do this with only the first word here.
9C07
10011 | 10000 | 00011 | 1
19 | 16 | 3
These are actually x,y,z coordinates and the final bit determines the order they are in a '0' would make it x=19 y=16 z=3 and '1' is x=16 y=3 z=19
I already have a buffer filled with these hex values, but I have no idea where to go from here.
I assume these are integer literals, not strings?
The way to do this is with bitwise right shift (>>) and bitwise AND (&)
#include <cstdint>
struct Coordinate {
std::uint8_t x;
std::uint8_t y;
std::uint8_t z;
constexpr Coordinate(std::uint16_t n) noexcept
{
if (n & 1) { // flag
x = (n >> 6) & 0x1F; // 1 1111
y = (n >> 1) & 0x1F;
z = n >> 11;
} else {
x = n >> 11;
y = (n >> 6) & 0x1F;
z = (n >> 1) & 0x1F;
}
}
};
The following code would extract the three coordinates and the flag from the 16 least significant bits of value (ie. its least significant word).
int flag = value & 1; // keep only the least significant bit
value >>= 1; // shift right by one bit
int third_integer = value & 0x1f; // keep only the five least significant bits
value >>= 5; // shift right by five bits
int second_integer = value & 0x1f; // keep only the five least significant bits
value >>= 5; // shift right by five bits
int first_integer = value & 0x1f; // keep only the five least significant bits
value >>= 5; // shift right by five bits (only useful if there are other words in "value")
What you need is most likely some loop doing this on each word of your array.

Carry bits in incidents of overflow

/*
* isLessOrEqual - if x <= y then return 1, else return 0
* Example: isLessOrEqual(4,5) = 1.
* Legal ops: ! ~ & ^ | + << >>
* Max ops: 24
* Rating: 3
*/
int isLessOrEqual(int x, int y)
{
int msbX = x>>31;
int msbY = y>>31;
int sum_xy = (y+(~x+1));
int twoPosAndNegative = (!msbX & !msbY) & sum_xy; //isLessOrEqual is FALSE.
// if = true, twoPosAndNegative = 1; Overflow true
// twoPos = Negative means y < x which means that this
int twoNegAndPositive = (msbX & msbY) & !sum_xy;//isLessOrEqual is FALSE
//We started with two negative numbers, and subtracted X, resulting in positive. Therefore, x is bigger.
int isEqual = (!x^!y); //isLessOrEqual is TRUE
return (twoPosAndNegative | twoNegAndPositive | isEqual);
}
Currently, I am trying to work through how to carry bits in this operator.
The purpose of this function is to identify whether or not int y >= int x.
This is part of a class assignment, so there are restrictions on casting and which operators I can use.
I'm trying to account for a carried bit by applying a mask of the complement of the MSB, to try and remove the most significant bit from the equation, so that they may overflow without causing an issue.
I am under the impression that, ignoring cases of overflow, the returned operator would work.
EDIT: Here is my adjusted code, still not working. But, I think this is progress? I feel like I'm chasing my own tail.
int isLessOrEqual(int x, int y)
{
int msbX = x >> 31;
int msbY = y >> 31;
int sign_xy_sum = (y + (~x + 1)) >> 31;
return ((!msbY & msbX) | (!sign_xy_sum & (!msbY | msbX)));
}
I figured it out with the assistance of one of my peers, alongside the commentators here on StackOverflow.
The solution is as seen above.
The asker has self-answered their question (a class assignment), so providing alternative solutions seems appropriate at this time. The question clearly assumes that integers are represented as two's complement numbers.
One approach is to consider how CPUs compute predicates for conditional branching by means of a compare instruction. "signed less than" as expressed in processor condition codes is SF ≠ OF. SF is the sign flag, a copy of the sign-bit, or most significant bit (MSB) of the result. OF is the overflow flag which indicates overflow in signed integer operations. This is computed as the XOR of the carry-in and the carry-out of the sign-bit or MSB. With two's complement arithmetic, a - b = a + ~b + 1, and therefore a < b = a + ~b < 0. It remains to separate computation on the sign bit (MSB) sufficiently from the lower order bits. This leads to the following code:
int isLessOrEqual (int a, int b)
{
int nb = ~b;
int ma = a & ((1U << (sizeof(a) * CHAR_BIT - 1)) - 1);
int mb = nb & ((1U << (sizeof(b) * CHAR_BIT - 1)) - 1);
// for the following, only the MSB is of interest, other bits are don't care
int cyin = ma + mb;
int ovfl = (a ^ cyin) & (a ^ b);
int sign = (a ^ nb ^ cyin);
int lteq = sign ^ ovfl;
// desired predicate is now in the MSB (sign bit) of lteq, extract it
return (int)((unsigned int)lteq >> (sizeof(lteq) * CHAR_BIT - 1));
}
The casting to unsigned int prior to the final right shift is necessary because right-shifting of signed integers with negative value is implementation-defined, per the ISO-C++ standard, section 5.8. Asker has pointed out that casts are not allowed. When right shifting signed integers, C++ compilers will generate either a logical right shift instruction, or an arithmetic right shift instruction. As we are only interested in extracting the MSB, we can isolate ourselves from the choice by shifting then masking out all other bits besides the LSB, at the cost of one additional operation:
return (lteq >> (sizeof(lteq) * CHAR_BIT - 1)) & 1;
The above solution requires a total of eleven or twelve basic operations. A significantly more efficient solution is based on the 1972 MIT HAKMEM memo, which contains the following observation:
ITEM 23 (Schroeppel): (A AND B) + (A OR B) = A + B = (A XOR B) + 2 (A AND B).
This is straightforward, as A AND B represent the carry bits, and A XOR B represent the sum bits. In a newsgroup posting to comp.arch.arithmetic on February 11, 2000, Peter L. Montgomery provided the following extension:
If XOR is available, then this can be used to average
two unsigned variables A and B when the sum might overflow:
(A+B)/2 = (A AND B) + (A XOR B)/2
In the context of this question, this allows us to compute (a + ~b) / 2 without overflow, then inspect the sign bit to see if the result is less than zero. While Montgomery only referred to unsigned integers, the extension to signed integers is straightforward by use of an arithmetic right shift, keeping in mind that right shifting is an integer division which rounds towards negative infinity, rather than towards zero as regular integer division.
int isLessOrEqual (int a, int b)
{
int nb = ~b;
// compute avg(a,~b) without overflow, rounding towards -INF; lteq(a,b) = SF
int lteq = (a & nb) + arithmetic_right_shift (a ^ nb, 1);
return (int)((unsigned int)lteq >> (sizeof(lteq) * CHAR_BIT - 1));
}
Unfortunately, C++ itself provides no portable way to code an arithmetic right shift, but we can emulate it fairly efficiently using this answer:
int arithmetic_right_shift (int a, int s)
{
unsigned int mask_msb = 1U << (sizeof(mask_msb) * CHAR_BIT - 1);
unsigned int ua = a;
ua = ua >> s;
mask_msb = mask_msb >> s;
return (int)((ua ^ mask_msb) - mask_msb);
}
When inlined, this adds just a couple of instructions to the code when the shift count is a compile-time constant. If the compiler documentation indicates that the implementation-defined handling of signed integers of negative value is accomplished via arithmetic right shift instruction, it is safe to simplify to this six-operation solution:
int isLessOrEqual (int a, int b)
{
int nb = ~b;
// compute avg(a,~b) without overflow, rounding towards -INF; lteq(a,b) = SF
int lteq = (a & nb) + ((a ^ nb) >> 1);
return (int)((unsigned int)lteq >> (sizeof(lteq) * CHAR_BIT - 1));
}
The previously made comments regarding use of a cast when converting the sign bit into a predicate apply here as well.

Replicating the function of a for loop using only bitwise operators

I'm trying to replicate the function of a loop using only bitwise and certain operators including ! ~ & ^ | + << >>
int loop(int x) {
for (int i = 1; i < 32; i += 2)
if ((x & (1 << i)) == 0)
return 0;
return 1;
}
Im unsure however how to replicate the accumulating nature of a loop using just these operators. I understand shifting << >> will allow me to multiply and divide. However manipulation using ! ~ & ^ ~ has proven more difficult. Any Tips?
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/cprogramming/c_operators.htm
Edit:
I understand how the addition of bits can be achieved, however not how such an output can be achieved without first calling a while or for loop.
Maybe this can help:
int loop(int x) {
x = x & 0xaaaaaaaa; // Set all even numbered bits in x to zero
x = x ^ 0xaaaaaaaa; // If all odd numbered bits in x are 1, x becomes zero
x = !x; // The operation returns 1 if x is zero - otherwise 0
return x;
}
Your code tests all odd bits and returns 1 if all of them are set. You can use this bitmask: ...0101 0101 0101
Which, for 32 bits is 0xAAAAAAAA.
Then you take your value und bitwise-and it. If the result is the same as your mask, it means all bits are set.
int testOddBits(int x) {
return (x & 0xAAAAAAAA) == 0xAAAAAAAA;
}

8-digit BCD check

I've a 8-digit BCD number and need to check it out to see if it is a valid BCD number. How can I programmatically (C/C++) make this?
Ex: 0x12345678 is valid, but 0x00f00abc isn't.
Thanks in advance!
You need to check each 4-bit quantity to make sure it's less than 10. For efficiency you want to work on as many bits as you can at a single time.
Here I break the digits apart to leave a zero between each one, then add 6 to each and check for overflow.
uint32_t highs = (value & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
uint32_t lows = value & 0x0f0f0f0f;
bool invalid = (((highs + 0x06060606) | (lows + 0x06060606)) & 0xf0f0f0f0) != 0;
Edit: actually we can do slightly better. It doesn't take 4 bits to detect overflow, only 1. If we divide all the digits by 2, it frees a bit and we can check all the digits at once.
uint32_t halfdigits = (value >> 1) & 0x77777777;
bool invalid = ((halfdigits + 0x33333333) & 0x88888888) != 0;
The obvious way to do this is:
/* returns 1 if x is valid BCD */
int
isvalidbcd (uint32_t x)
{
for (; x; x = x>>4)
{
if ((x & 0xf) >= 0xa)
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
This link tells you all about BCD, and recommends something like this asa more optimised solution (reworking to check all the digits, and hence using a 64 bit data type, and untested):
/* returns 1 if x is valid BCD */
int
isvalidbcd (uint32_t x)
{
return !!(((uint64_t)x + 0x66666666ULL) ^ (uint64_t)x) & 0x111111110ULL;
}
For a digit to be invalid, it needs to be 10-15. That in turn means 8 + 4 or 8+2 - the low bit doesn't matter at all.
So:
long mask8 = value & 0x88888888;
long mask4 = value & 0x44444444;
long mask2 = value & 0x22222222;
return ((mask8 >> 2) & ((mask4 >>1) | mask2) == 0;
Slightly less obvious:
long mask8 = (value>>2);
long mask42 = (value | (value>>1);
return (mask8 & mask42 & 0x22222222) == 0;
By shifting before masking, we don't need 3 different masks.
Inspired by #Mark Ransom
bool invalid = (0x88888888 & (((value & 0xEEEEEEEE) >> 1) + (0x66666666 >> 1))) != 0;
// or
bool valid = !((((value & 0xEEEEEEEEu) >> 1) + 0x33333333) & 0x88888888);
Mask off each BCD digit's 1's place, shift right, then add 6 and check for BCD digit overflow.
How this works:
By adding +6 to each digit, we look for an overflow * of the 4-digit sum.
abcd
+ 110
-----
*efgd
But the bit value of d does not contribute to the sum, so first mask off that bit and shift right. Now the overflow bit is in the 8's place. This all is done in parallel and we mask these carry bits with 0x88888888 and test if any are set.
0abc
+ 11
-----
*efg

Parsing 32 bit integer in C program

I have a 32 bit integer, split into parts like this:
--------------------------------------
| Part1 | Part2 | Part 3 |
--------------------------------------
Part 1 higher 16 bits. (Part 2 + Part 3) = lower 16 bits.
Part 2 is 10 bits and Part 3 is 6 bits
I need help on how do we read and update part 1, part2 and part 3 in C program.
Given an integer x with the above format, you can replace Part2 like this:
x = (x & ~(0x3ff << 6)) | (newPart2 << 6);
and Part3 like so:
x = (x & ~0x3f) | newPart3;
This assumes that both newPart2 and newPart3 are e.g. unsigned int with their new values right-adjusted.
int i
To extract the individual parts
part1 = (i & 0xFFFF0000) >> 16
part2 = (i & 0x0000FFC0) >> 6
part3 = (i & 0x0000003F)
To compose the integer
i = (part1 << 16) | (part2 << 6) | (part3)
Try cast to this structure
struct {
uint32_t part_1:16;
uint32_t part_2:10;
uint32_t part_3:6;
} parts;
Could be the one below depending on endianness
struct {
uint32_t part_1:6;
uint32_t part_2:10;
uint32_t part_3:16;
} parts;
Obviously not portable!
Since you need to read and update, a pointer will do. For example, if you 32bit value is called x, you do the following
parts *ptr = (parts *)&x;
ptr->part_2 = <part2 update>
The theory to be used behind this are and, or and shift operations with masks.
To access some bits of the integer, first create a mask where there are ones in the bits you want to be used. Now apply and and(&) operation between the mask and the integer. According to the behavior of the & the bits where the mask is 0 will be 0 and where the mask is 1 will have the value of that bit in the integer. Now that we have only the bits we want we align them to the right, that is done shifting the bits to the right the correct number of positions as to leave the rightmost bit of the mask in the less significant position of the byte.
To write in a part of a byte, we need fist to nullify what was in that part for that we use the negated mask that is used to read that part. Once that part is negated we apply an or(|) operation with the new value that must be aligned to that position.
To read:
unsigned int read_part_1(unsigned int composed) {
return (composed & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
}
unsigned int read_part_2(unsigned int composed) {
return (composed & 0x0000ffc0) >> 6;
}
unsigned int read_part_3(unsigned int composed) {
return (composed & 0x0000003f);
}
To write(val aligned to the right):
unsigned int write_part_1(unsigned int composed, unsigned int val) {
return (composed & ~0xffff0000) | ((val & 0x0000ffff) << 16);
}
unsigned int write_part_2(unsigned int composed, unsigned int val) {
return (composed & ~0x0000ffc0) | ((val & 0x000003ff) << 10);
}
unsigned int write_part_3(unsigned int composed, unsigned int val) {
return (composed & ~0x0000003f) | (val & 0x0000003f);
}