In C/C++ what's the simplest way to reverse the order of bits in a byte?
If you are talking about a single byte, a table-lookup is probably the best bet, unless for some reason you don't have 256 bytes available.
In C/C++ what's the simplest way to reverse the order of bits in a byte?
If you are talking about a single byte, a table-lookup is probably the best bet, unless for some reason you don't have 256 bytes available.
reversing byte order in c
The following functions swap bytes-strings of whichever length you want. The swapbytes() swaps all the bytes contained in the inp parameter inside inp thus modifying the contents of inp. The swapbytesout() swaps the contents of the inp paramenter inside the out parameter, then it doesn't modify the contents of inp.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
void * swapbytes(void *inp, size_t len);
void * swapbytesout(void * inp, void *out, size_t len);
/* This function swaps and modifies the content of inp
*
* Returns: a pointer to the output value (inp) */
void * swapbytes(void *inp, size_t len)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned char *in=(unsigned char *)inp,tmp;
for(i=0;i<len/2;i++) {
tmp=*(in+i);
*(in+i)=*(in+len-i-1);
*(in+len-i-1)=tmp;
}
return inp;
}
/* This function doesn't swap and doesn't modify the content
* of inp, the output is computed on out.
*
* Returns: a pointer to the output value (out) */
void * swapbytesout(void *inp, void *out, size_t len)
{
unsigned int i;
unsigned char *o=(unsigned char *)out;
unsigned char *in=(unsigned char *)inp;
for(i=0;i<len;i++) {
*(o+len-i-1)=*(in+i);
}
return out;
}
int main(void)
{
uint32_t a0,a1;
uint64_t b0,b1;
a0=0x12345678;
printf("%08X\n",*(uint32_t *)swapbytesout(&a0,&a1,sizeof(a0)));
printf("%08X %08X\n",a0,a1);
printf("%08X\n",*(uint32_t *)swapbytes(&a0,sizeof(a0)));
printf("%08X\n",a0);
puts("");
b0=0x123456789ABCDEF0ULL;
printf("%016"PRIX64"\n",*(uint64_t *)swapbytesout(&b0,&b1,sizeof(b0)));
printf("%016"PRIX64" %016"PRIX64"\n",b0,b1);
printf("%016"PRIX64"\n",*(uint64_t *)swapbytes(&b0,sizeof(b0)));
printf("%016"PRIX64"\n",b0);
return 0;
}
Efficient Algorithm for Bit Reversal (from MSB- LSB to LSB- MSB) in C
NOTE: All algorithms below are in C, but should be portable to your language of choice (just don't look at me when they're not as fast :)
Options
Low Memory (32-bit int, 32-bit machine)(from here):
unsigned int
reverse(register unsigned int x)
{
x = (((x & 0xIn C/C++ What's the Simplest Way to Reverse the Order of Bits in a Byte) >> 1) | ((x & 0x55555555) << 1));
x = (((x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2) | ((x & 0x33333333) << 2));
x = (((x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4) | ((x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4));
x = (((x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8) | ((x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8));
return((x >> 16) | (x << 16));
}
From the famous Bit Twiddling Hacks page:
Fastest (lookup table):
static const unsigned char BitReverseTable256[] =
{
0x00, 0x80, 0x40, 0xC0, 0x20, 0xA0, 0x60, 0xE0, 0x10, 0x90, 0x50, 0xD0, 0x30, 0xB0, 0x70, 0xF0,
0x08, 0x88, 0x48, 0xC8, 0x28, 0xA8, 0x68, 0xE8, 0x18, 0x98, 0x58, 0xD8, 0x38, 0xB8, 0x78, 0xF8,
0x04, 0x84, 0x44, 0xC4, 0x24, 0xA4, 0x64, 0xE4, 0x14, 0x94, 0x54, 0xD4, 0x34, 0xB4, 0x74, 0xF4,
0x0C, 0x8C, 0x4C, 0xCC, 0x2C, 0xAC, 0x6C, 0xEC, 0x1C, 0x9C, 0x5C, 0xDC, 0x3C, 0xBC, 0x7C, 0xFC,
0x02, 0x82, 0x42, 0xC2, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x62, 0xE2, 0x12, 0x92, 0x52, 0xD2, 0x32, 0xB2, 0x72, 0xF2,
0x0A, 0x8A, 0x4A, 0xCA, 0x2A, 0xAA, 0x6A, 0xEA, 0x1A, 0x9A, 0x5A, 0xDA, 0x3A, 0xBA, 0x7A, 0xFA,
0x06, 0x86, 0x46, 0xC6, 0x26, 0xA6, 0x66, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x96, 0x56, 0xD6, 0x36, 0xB6, 0x76, 0xF6,
0x0E, 0x8E, 0x4E, 0xCE, 0x2E, 0xAE, 0x6E, 0xEE, 0x1E, 0x9E, 0x5E, 0xDE, 0x3E, 0xBE, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x01, 0x81, 0x41, 0xC1, 0x21, 0xA1, 0x61, 0xE1, 0x11, 0x91, 0x51, 0xD1, 0x31, 0xB1, 0x71, 0xF1,
0x09, 0x89, 0x49, 0xC9, 0x29, 0xA9, 0x69, 0xE9, 0x19, 0x99, 0x59, 0xD9, 0x39, 0xB9, 0x79, 0xF9,
0x05, 0x85, 0x45, 0xC5, 0x25, 0xA5, 0x65, 0xE5, 0x15, 0x95, 0x55, 0xD5, 0x35, 0xB5, 0x75, 0xF5,
0x0D, 0x8D, 0x4D, 0xCD, 0x2D, 0xAD, 0x6D, 0xED, 0x1D, 0x9D, 0x5D, 0xDD, 0x3D, 0xBD, 0x7D, 0xFD,
0x03, 0x83, 0x43, 0xC3, 0x23, 0xA3, 0x63, 0xE3, 0x13, 0x93, 0x53, 0xD3, 0x33, 0xB3, 0x73, 0xF3,
0x0B, 0x8B, 0x4B, 0xCB, 0x2B, 0xAB, 0x6B, 0xEB, 0x1B, 0x9B, 0x5B, 0xDB, 0x3B, 0xBB, 0x7B, 0xFB,
0x07, 0x87, 0x47, 0xC7, 0x27, 0xA7, 0x67, 0xE7, 0x17, 0x97, 0x57, 0xD7, 0x37, 0xB7, 0x77, 0xF7,
0x0F, 0x8F, 0x4F, 0xCF, 0x2F, 0xAF, 0x6F, 0xEF, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0x5F, 0xDF, 0x3F, 0xBF, 0x7F, 0xFF
};
unsigned int v; // reverse 32-bit value, 8 bits at time
unsigned int c; // c will get v reversed
// Option 1:
c = (BitReverseTable256[v & 0xff] << 24) |
(BitReverseTable256[(v >> 8) & 0xff] << 16) |
(BitReverseTable256[(v >> 16) & 0xff] << 8) |
(BitReverseTable256[(v >> 24) & 0xff]);
// Option 2:
unsigned char * p = (unsigned char *) &v;
unsigned char * q = (unsigned char *) &c;
q[3] = BitReverseTable256[p[0]];
q[2] = BitReverseTable256[p[1]];
q[1] = BitReverseTable256[p[2]];
q[0] = BitReverseTable256[p[3]];
You can extend this idea to 64-bit ints, or trade off memory for speed (assuming your L1 Data Cache is large enough), and reverse 16 bits at a time with a 64K-entry lookup table.
Others
Simple
unsigned int v; // input bits to be reversed
unsigned int r = v & 1; // r will be reversed bits of v; first get LSB of v
int s = sizeof(v) * CHAR_BIT - 1; // extra shift needed at end
for (v >>= 1; v; v >>= 1)
{
r <<= 1;
r |= v & 1;
s--;
}
r <<= s; // shift when v's highest bits are zero
Faster (32-bit processor)
unsigned char b = x;
b = ((b * 0x0802LU & 0x22110LU) | (b * 0x8020LU & 0x88440LU)) * 0x10101LU >> 16;
Faster (64-bit processor)
unsigned char b; // reverse this (8-bit) byte
b = (b * 0x0202020202ULL & 0x010884422010ULL) % 1023;
If you want to do this on a 32-bit int, just reverse the bits in each byte, and reverse the order of the bytes. That is:
unsigned int toReverse;
unsigned int reversed;
unsigned char inByte0 = (toReverse & 0xFF);
unsigned char inByte1 = (toReverse & 0xFF00) >> 8;
unsigned char inByte2 = (toReverse & 0xFF0000) >> 16;
unsigned char inByte3 = (toReverse & 0xFF000000) >> 24;
reversed = (reverseBits(inByte0) << 24) | (reverseBits(inByte1) << 16) | (reverseBits(inByte2) << 8) | (reverseBits(inByte3);
Results
I benchmarked the two most promising solutions, the lookup table, and bitwise-AND (the first one). The test machine is a laptop w/ 4GB of DDR2-800 and a Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.4GHz, 4MB L2 Cache; YMMV. I used gcc 4.3.2 on 64-bit Linux. OpenMP (and the GCC bindings) were used for high-resolution timers.
reverse.c
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
unsigned int
reverse(register unsigned int x)
{
x = (((x & 0xIn C/C++ What's the Simplest Way to Reverse the Order of Bits in a Byte) >> 1) | ((x & 0x55555555) << 1));
x = (((x & 0xcccccccc) >> 2) | ((x & 0x33333333) << 2));
x = (((x & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4) | ((x & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4));
x = (((x & 0xff00ff00) >> 8) | ((x & 0x00ff00ff) << 8));
return((x >> 16) | (x << 16));
}
int main()
{
unsigned int *ints = malloc(100000000*sizeof(unsigned int));
unsigned int *ints2 = malloc(100000000*sizeof(unsigned int));
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++)
ints[i] = rand();
unsigned int *inptr = ints;
unsigned int *outptr = ints2;
unsigned int *endptr = ints + 100000000;
// Starting the time measurement
double start = omp_get_wtime();
// Computations to be measured
while(inptr != endptr)
{
(*outptr) = reverse(*inptr);
inptr++;
outptr++;
}
// Measuring the elapsed time
double end = omp_get_wtime();
// Time calculation (in seconds)
printf("Time: %f seconds\n", end-start);
free(ints);
free(ints2);
return 0;
}
reverse_lookup.c
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
static const unsigned char BitReverseTable256[] =
{
0x00, 0x80, 0x40, 0xC0, 0x20, 0xA0, 0x60, 0xE0, 0x10, 0x90, 0x50, 0xD0, 0x30, 0xB0, 0x70, 0xF0,
0x08, 0x88, 0x48, 0xC8, 0x28, 0xA8, 0x68, 0xE8, 0x18, 0x98, 0x58, 0xD8, 0x38, 0xB8, 0x78, 0xF8,
0x04, 0x84, 0x44, 0xC4, 0x24, 0xA4, 0x64, 0xE4, 0x14, 0x94, 0x54, 0xD4, 0x34, 0xB4, 0x74, 0xF4,
0x0C, 0x8C, 0x4C, 0xCC, 0x2C, 0xAC, 0x6C, 0xEC, 0x1C, 0x9C, 0x5C, 0xDC, 0x3C, 0xBC, 0x7C, 0xFC,
0x02, 0x82, 0x42, 0xC2, 0x22, 0xA2, 0x62, 0xE2, 0x12, 0x92, 0x52, 0xD2, 0x32, 0xB2, 0x72, 0xF2,
0x0A, 0x8A, 0x4A, 0xCA, 0x2A, 0xAA, 0x6A, 0xEA, 0x1A, 0x9A, 0x5A, 0xDA, 0x3A, 0xBA, 0x7A, 0xFA,
0x06, 0x86, 0x46, 0xC6, 0x26, 0xA6, 0x66, 0xE6, 0x16, 0x96, 0x56, 0xD6, 0x36, 0xB6, 0x76, 0xF6,
0x0E, 0x8E, 0x4E, 0xCE, 0x2E, 0xAE, 0x6E, 0xEE, 0x1E, 0x9E, 0x5E, 0xDE, 0x3E, 0xBE, 0x7E, 0xFE,
0x01, 0x81, 0x41, 0xC1, 0x21, 0xA1, 0x61, 0xE1, 0x11, 0x91, 0x51, 0xD1, 0x31, 0xB1, 0x71, 0xF1,
0x09, 0x89, 0x49, 0xC9, 0x29, 0xA9, 0x69, 0xE9, 0x19, 0x99, 0x59, 0xD9, 0x39, 0xB9, 0x79, 0xF9,
0x05, 0x85, 0x45, 0xC5, 0x25, 0xA5, 0x65, 0xE5, 0x15, 0x95, 0x55, 0xD5, 0x35, 0xB5, 0x75, 0xF5,
0x0D, 0x8D, 0x4D, 0xCD, 0x2D, 0xAD, 0x6D, 0xED, 0x1D, 0x9D, 0x5D, 0xDD, 0x3D, 0xBD, 0x7D, 0xFD,
0x03, 0x83, 0x43, 0xC3, 0x23, 0xA3, 0x63, 0xE3, 0x13, 0x93, 0x53, 0xD3, 0x33, 0xB3, 0x73, 0xF3,
0x0B, 0x8B, 0x4B, 0xCB, 0x2B, 0xAB, 0x6B, 0xEB, 0x1B, 0x9B, 0x5B, 0xDB, 0x3B, 0xBB, 0x7B, 0xFB,
0x07, 0x87, 0x47, 0xC7, 0x27, 0xA7, 0x67, 0xE7, 0x17, 0x97, 0x57, 0xD7, 0x37, 0xB7, 0x77, 0xF7,
0x0F, 0x8F, 0x4F, 0xCF, 0x2F, 0xAF, 0x6F, 0xEF, 0x1F, 0x9F, 0x5F, 0xDF, 0x3F, 0xBF, 0x7F, 0xFF
};
int main()
{
unsigned int *ints = malloc(100000000*sizeof(unsigned int));
unsigned int *ints2 = malloc(100000000*sizeof(unsigned int));
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++)
ints[i] = rand();
unsigned int *inptr = ints;
unsigned int *outptr = ints2;
unsigned int *endptr = ints + 100000000;
// Starting the time measurement
double start = omp_get_wtime();
// Computations to be measured
while(inptr != endptr)
{
unsigned int in = *inptr;
// Option 1:
//*outptr = (BitReverseTable256[in & 0xff] << 24) |
// (BitReverseTable256[(in >> 8) & 0xff] << 16) |
// (BitReverseTable256[(in >> 16) & 0xff] << 8) |
// (BitReverseTable256[(in >> 24) & 0xff]);
// Option 2:
unsigned char * p = (unsigned char *) &(*inptr);
unsigned char * q = (unsigned char *) &(*outptr);
q[3] = BitReverseTable256[p[0]];
q[2] = BitReverseTable256[p[1]];
q[1] = BitReverseTable256[p[2]];
q[0] = BitReverseTable256[p[3]];
inptr++;
outptr++;
}
// Measuring the elapsed time
double end = omp_get_wtime();
// Time calculation (in seconds)
printf("Time: %f seconds\n", end-start);
free(ints);
free(ints2);
return 0;
}
I tried both approaches at several different optimizations, ran 3 trials at each level, and each trial reversed 100 million random unsigned ints. For the lookup table option, I tried both schemes (options 1 and 2) given on the bitwise hacks page. Results are shown below.
Bitwise AND
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -o reverse reverse.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 2.000593 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 1.938893 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 1.936365 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O2 -o reverse reverse.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.942709 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.991104 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.947203 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O3 -o reverse reverse.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.922639 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.892372 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse
Time: 0.891688 seconds
Lookup Table (option 1)
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.201127 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.196129 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.235972 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O2 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.633042 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.655880 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.633390 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O3 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.652322 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.631739 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 0.652431 seconds
Lookup Table (option 2)
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.671537 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.688173 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.664662 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O2 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.049851 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.048403 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.085086 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ gcc -fopenmp -std=c99 -O3 -o reverse_lookup reverse_lookup.c
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.082223 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.053431 seconds
mrj10@mjlap:~/code$ ./reverse_lookup
Time: 1.081224 seconds
Conclusion
Use the lookup table, with option 1 (byte addressing is unsurprisingly slow) if you're concerned about performance. If you need to squeeze every last byte of memory out of your system (and you might, if you care about the performance of bit reversal), the optimized versions of the bitwise-AND approach aren't too shabby either.
Caveat
Yes, I know the benchmark code is a complete hack. Suggestions on how to improve it are more than welcome. Things I know about:
- I don't have access to ICC. This may be faster (please respond in a comment if you can test this out).
- A 64K lookup table may do well on some modern microarchitectures with large L1D.
- -mtune=native didn't work for -O2/-O3 (
ldblew up with some crazy symbol redefinition error), so I don't believe the generated code is tuned for my microarchitecture. - There may be a way to do this slightly faster with SSE. I have no idea how, but with fast replication, packed bitwise AND, and swizzling instructions, there's got to be something there.
- I know only enough x86 assembly to be dangerous; here's the code GCC generated on -O3 for option 1, so somebody more knowledgable than myself can check it out:
32-bit
.L3:
movl (%r12,%rsi), %ecx
movzbl %cl, %eax
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %edx
movl %ecx, %eax
shrl $24, %eax
mov %eax, %eax
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
sall $24, %edx
orl %eax, %edx
movzbl %ch, %eax
shrl $16, %ecx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
movzbl %cl, %ecx
sall $16, %eax
orl %eax, %edx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rcx), %eax
sall $8, %eax
orl %eax, %edx
movl %edx, (%r13,%rsi)
addq $4, %rsi
cmpq $400000000, %rsi
jne .L3
EDIT: I also tried using uint64_t types on my machine to see if there was any performance boost. Performance was about 10% faster than 32-bit, and was nearly identical whether you were just using 64-bit types to reverse bits on two 32-bit int types at a time, or whether you were actually reversing bits in half as many 64-bit values. The assembly code is shown below (for the former case, reversing bits for two 32-bit int types at a time):
.L3:
movq (%r12,%rsi), %rdx
movq %rdx, %rax
shrq $24, %rax
andl $255, %eax
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %ecx
movzbq %dl,%rax
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
salq $24, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movq %rdx, %rax
shrq $56, %rax
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
salq $32, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movzbl %dh, %eax
shrq $16, %rdx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
salq $16, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movzbq %dl,%rax
shrq $16, %rdx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
salq $8, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movzbq %dl,%rax
shrq $8, %rdx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
salq $56, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movzbq %dl,%rax
shrq $8, %rdx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rax), %eax
andl $255, %edx
salq $48, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movzbl BitReverseTable256(%rdx), %eax
salq $40, %rax
orq %rax, %rcx
movq %rcx, (%r13,%rsi)
addq $8, %rsi
cmpq $400000000, %rsi
jne .L3
Is there a built-in function to reverse bit order
I decided to do some performance tests about reversing methods.
Using Chad's link I wrote the following methods:
public static byte[] BitReverseTable =
{
0x00, 0x80, 0x40, 0xc0, 0x20, 0xa0, 0x60, 0xe0,
0x10, 0x90, 0x50, 0xd0, 0x30, 0xb0, 0x70, 0xf0,
0x08, 0x88, 0x48, 0xc8, 0x28, 0xa8, 0x68, 0xe8,
0x18, 0x98, 0x58, 0xd8, 0x38, 0xb8, 0x78, 0xf8,
0x04, 0x84, 0x44, 0xc4, 0x24, 0xa4, 0x64, 0xe4,
0x14, 0x94, 0x54, 0xd4, 0x34, 0xb4, 0x74, 0xf4,
0x0c, 0x8c, 0x4c, 0xcc, 0x2c, 0xac, 0x6c, 0xec,
0x1c, 0x9c, 0x5c, 0xdc, 0x3c, 0xbc, 0x7c, 0xfc,
0x02, 0x82, 0x42, 0xc2, 0x22, 0xa2, 0x62, 0xe2,
0x12, 0x92, 0x52, 0xd2, 0x32, 0xb2, 0x72, 0xf2,
0x0a, 0x8a, 0x4a, 0xca, 0x2a, 0xaa, 0x6a, 0xea,
0x1a, 0x9a, 0x5a, 0xda, 0x3a, 0xba, 0x7a, 0xfa,
0x06, 0x86, 0x46, 0xc6, 0x26, 0xa6, 0x66, 0xe6,
0x16, 0x96, 0x56, 0xd6, 0x36, 0xb6, 0x76, 0xf6,
0x0e, 0x8e, 0x4e, 0xce, 0x2e, 0xae, 0x6e, 0xee,
0x1e, 0x9e, 0x5e, 0xde, 0x3e, 0xbe, 0x7e, 0xfe,
0x01, 0x81, 0x41, 0xc1, 0x21, 0xa1, 0x61, 0xe1,
0x11, 0x91, 0x51, 0xd1, 0x31, 0xb1, 0x71, 0xf1,
0x09, 0x89, 0x49, 0xc9, 0x29, 0xa9, 0x69, 0xe9,
0x19, 0x99, 0x59, 0xd9, 0x39, 0xb9, 0x79, 0xf9,
0x05, 0x85, 0x45, 0xc5, 0x25, 0xa5, 0x65, 0xe5,
0x15, 0x95, 0x55, 0xd5, 0x35, 0xb5, 0x75, 0xf5,
0x0d, 0x8d, 0x4d, 0xcd, 0x2d, 0xad, 0x6d, 0xed,
0x1d, 0x9d, 0x5d, 0xdd, 0x3d, 0xbd, 0x7d, 0xfd,
0x03, 0x83, 0x43, 0xc3, 0x23, 0xa3, 0x63, 0xe3,
0x13, 0x93, 0x53, 0xd3, 0x33, 0xb3, 0x73, 0xf3,
0x0b, 0x8b, 0x4b, 0xcb, 0x2b, 0xab, 0x6b, 0xeb,
0x1b, 0x9b, 0x5b, 0xdb, 0x3b, 0xbb, 0x7b, 0xfb,
0x07, 0x87, 0x47, 0xc7, 0x27, 0xa7, 0x67, 0xe7,
0x17, 0x97, 0x57, 0xd7, 0x37, 0xb7, 0x77, 0xf7,
0x0f, 0x8f, 0x4f, 0xcf, 0x2f, 0xaf, 0x6f, 0xef,
0x1f, 0x9f, 0x5f, 0xdf, 0x3f, 0xbf, 0x7f, 0xff
};
public static byte ReverseWithLookupTable(byte toReverse)
{
return BitReverseTable[toReverse];
}
public static byte ReverseBitsWith4Operations(byte b)
{
return (byte)(((b * 0x80200802ul) & 0x0884422110ul) * 0x0101010101ul >> 32);
}
public static byte ReverseBitsWith3Operations(byte b)
{
return (byte)((b * 0x0202020202ul & 0x010884422010ul) % 1023);
}
public static byte ReverseBitsWith7Operations(byte b)
{
return (byte)(((b * 0x0802u & 0x22110u) | (b * 0x8020u & 0x88440u)) * 0x10101u >> 16);
}
public static byte ReverseBitsWithLoop(byte v)
{
byte r = v; // r will be reversed bits of v; first get LSB of v
int s = 7; // extra shift needed at end
for (v >>= 1; v != 0; v >>= 1)
{
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(v & 1);
s--;
}
r <<= s; // shift when v's highest bits are zero
return r;
}
public static byte ReverseWithUnrolledLoop(byte b)
{
byte r = b;
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
r <<= 1;
r |= (byte)(b & 1);
b >>= 1;
return r;
}
Then I tested it, and here's the results:
Test features:
- 100000000 random bytes to reverse
- OS: Windows 7 x64
- CPU: AMD Phenom II 955 (4-core @ 3.2 GHz)
- RAM: 4GB
- IDE: Visual Studio 2010
Target framework 3.5
-----------------------------------------------------
| Method | Ticks(x64 mode) | Ticks(x86 mode) |
-----------------------------------------------------
| Loop | 4861859 | 4079554 |
| Unrolled Loop | 3241781 | 2948026 |
| Look-up table | 894809 | 312410 |
| 3-Operations | 2068072 | 6757008 |
| 4-Operations | 893924 | 1972576 |
| 7-Operations | 1219189 | 303499 |
-----------------------------------------------------
Target framework 4
-----------------------------------------------------
| Method | Ticks(x64 mode) | Ticks(x86 mode) |
-----------------------------------------------------
| Loop | 4682654 | 4147036 |
| Unrolled Loop | 3154920 | 2851307 |
| Look-up table | 602686 | 313940 |
| 3-Operations | 2067509 | 6661542 |
| 4-Operations | 893406 | 2018334 |
| 7-Operations | 1193200 | 991792 |
-----------------------------------------------------
So, look-up table method is not always the fastest :)
That can be reasonable, because memory access is slower than CPU registers access, so if some method is compiled and optimized enough to avoid mem access (and to do few operations) it is faster. (Anyway, the gap is extremely reduced by CPU mem caching)
It's also interesting to see the different behaviours in case of x64 or x86 mode, and how 3.5 and 4.0 frameworks performs distinct optimizations.
How to turn every bit into a byte
To reverse byte order, the bit extraction can be done with the same trick, but by swapping the coefficients that perform the shift in the multiplication. However, to avoid clashes in the multiplication, it must be done in two steps, for the even and odd bits. This way, 2 bytes are free to hold the result of the every multiplication which is sufficient to ensure integrity of the result.
__device__ UINT64 bitToByte(const UINT8 input) {
UINT64 b = ( ((0x0002000800200080ULL * input) >> 7) & 0x0001000100010001ULL)
| ( ((0x0100040010004000ULL * input) >> 7) & 0x0100010001000100ULL);
return b;
}
As spotted in the comments, to optimize, the shifts can be factorized.
__device__ UINT64 bitToByte(const UINT8 input) {
UINT64 b = ( ((0x0002000800200080ULL * input) & 0x0080008000800080ULL)
| ((0x0100040010004000ULL * input) & 0x8000800080008000ULL) )
>> 7 ;
return b;
}
Related Topics
When to Pass by Reference and When to Pass by Pointer in C++
Strongly Typed Using and Typedef
How to Do an Integer Log2() in C++
Heterogeneous Containers in C++
Constexpr If and Static_Assert
Why Is 'This' a Pointer and Not a Reference
C/C++ Check If One Bit Is Set In, I.E. Int Variable
Standard Library Sort and User Defined Types
What Is the Worst Real-World Macros/Pre-Processor Abuse You'Ve Ever Come Across
Using Scanf() in C++ Programs Is Faster Than Using Cin
Std::Thread Pass by Reference Calls Copy Constructor
Nice Way to Append a Vector to Itself
C++ Obtaining Milliseconds Time on Linux - Clock() Doesn't Seem to Work Properly
Global Variable Within Multiple Files
What Does "Default" Mean After a Class' Function Declaration