C中位反转的有效算法(从MSB

本文介绍了C中位反转的有效算法(从MSB->LSB到LSB->MSB)的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！ 问题描述

实现以下目标的最有效算法是什么:

What is the most efficient algorithm to achieve the following:

0010 0000 =>0000 0100

转换是从 MSB->LSB 到 LSB->MSB.所有位必须颠倒；也就是说，这不是字节顺序交换.

The conversion is from MSB->LSB to LSB->MSB. All bits must be reversed; that is, this is not endianness-swapping.

推荐答案

注意:以下所有算法都是 C 语言，但应该可以移植到您选择的语言(别看我当他们不那么快时:)

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 :)

内存不足(32 位 int，32 位机器)(来自 这里):

Low Memory (32-bit int, 32-bit machine)(from here):

unsigned int reverse(register unsigned int x) { x = (((x & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 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)); }

来自著名的Bit Twiddling Hacks 页面:

最快(查找表):

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]];

您可以将此想法扩展到 64 位 ints，或以内存换取速度(假设您的 L1 数据缓存足够大)，并使用 64K- 一次反转 16 位条目查找表.

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.

简单

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

更快(32 位处理器)

unsigned char b = x; b = ((b * 0x0802LU & 0x22110LU) | (b * 0x8020LU & 0x88440LU)) * 0x10101LU >> 16;

更快(64 位处理器)

unsigned char b; // reverse this (8-bit) byte b = (b * 0x0202020202ULL & 0x010884422010ULL) % 1023;

如果您想在 32 位 int 上执行此操作，只需反转每个字节中的位，并反转字节顺序.那就是:

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);

结果

我对两个最有前途的解决方案进行了基准测试，查找表和按位与(第一个).测试机是配备 4GB DDR2-800 和 Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.4GHz、4MB L2 缓存的笔记本电脑；YMMV.我在 64 位 Linux 上使用了 gcc 4.3.2.OpenMP(和 GCC 绑定)用于高分辨率计时器.

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 & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 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 ", 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 ", end-start); free(ints); free(ints2); return 0; }

我在几种不同的优化中尝试了这两种方法，在每个级别运行了 3 次试验，每次试验反转了 1 亿个随机 unsigned ints.对于查找表选项，我尝试了按位黑客页面上给出的两种方案(选项 1 和 2).结果如下所示.

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.

按位与

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

查找表(选项 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

查找表(选项 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

结论

如果您担心性能，请使用带有选项 1 的查找表(字节寻址速度很慢).如果您需要从系统中挤出内存的最后一个字节(如果您关心位反转的性能，您可能会这样做)，按位与方法的优化版本也不会太差.

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.

是的，我知道基准代码完全是 hack.关于如何改进它的建议非常受欢迎.我知道的事情:

Yes, I know the benchmark code is a complete hack. Suggestions on how to improve it are more than welcome. Things I know about:

• 我无权访问 ICC.这可能会更快(如果您可以对此进行测试，请在评论中回复).
• 64K 查找表可能在一些具有大型 L1D 的现代微架构上表现良好.
• -mtune=native 不适用于 -O2/-O3(ld 出现了一些疯狂的符号重新定义错误)，所以我不相信生成的代码适合我的微架构.
• 可能有一种方法可以通过 SSE 稍微加快一点速度.我不知道怎么做，但是通过快速复制、打包的按位与和 swizzling 指令，那里一定有一些东西.
• 我只知道足够的 x86 程序集是危险的；这是选项 1 在 -O3 上生成的 GCC 代码，所以比我更有知识的人可以查看:

• 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 (ld blew 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 位

.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

我还尝试在我的机器上使用 uint64_t 类型来查看是否有任何性能提升.性能比 32 位快 10%，无论您是使用 64 位类型来一次反转两个 32 位 int 类型的位，还是实际上是将位反转为 64 位值的一半.汇编代码如下所示(对于前一种情况，一次反转两个 32 位 int 类型的位):

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