In C++, are the following two code snippets equivalent?
using my_type = unsigned;
my_type variable;
and
using my_type = unsigned int;
my_type variable;
If they are, why bother defining my_type instead of using unsigned or even unsigned int? Considering the latter two are a bit longer, but more explicit, when would one define and use my_type, unsigned and/or unsigned int?
Yes they are identical. Using my_type can make the intention clearer. E.g. consider using celsius = int;
To get even better type safety you can use the newtype pattern (Google it) but it is a bit tedious in C++.
The choice of unsigned Vs unsigned int is just taste.
Related
typedef struct {
uint32_t is_bin:1, is_write:1, is_be:1, is_cram:1, dummy:28;
int64_t lineno;
kstring_t line;
char *fn, *fn_aux;
union {
BGZF *bgzf;
struct cram_fd *cram;
struct hFILE *hfile;
void *voidp;
} fp;
htsFormat format;
} htsFile;
how to deal with the bit fields part of htsFile in Julia?
If I am not care about the specific value uint32_t is_bin:1, is_write:1, is_be:1, is_cram:1, dummy:28;, can I just use a Cuint variable to repalce it in julia?
can I just use a Cuint variable to replace it in julia?
Yes, the alignment will be the same. If you do need the values, you can use bitmasks to select the required bit(s).
As a side note, the StrPack package may be of interest for dealing with complicated struct [de]serialization (although I don't think it has built-in bitfield support).
You can extract the individual bits using julia'a bitwise manipulation functions (&, >>, etc.) You could define convenience functions like is_bin(x) = (x & 0x01) > 0.
I have a struct
struct GROUP_POINTS
{
unsigned char number_of_points;
void *points;
};
struct GROUP_POINTS group_points;
The reason for points being a void pointer is that I want to keep the groups as general as possible, and setting the "link" to the correct struct at runtime.
One of the other structs is:
struct POINT_A
{
unsigned char something;
};
I can make another pointer that points to the *points to get access to the struct like :
struct POINT_A *point_a = (struct POINT_A *)group_points.points;
and then access the points by doing :
(*point_a).number_of_points = 5;
But I would really like to be able to use it like this:
group_points.points.number_of_points
So not needing the second pointer just to point to the void pointer. Is there any way to do this ?
Assuming the language is C++, you may want to consider template solution like that:
template <class T>
struct GROUP_POINTS
{
unsigned char number_of_points;
T *points;
};
typedef GROUP_POINTS<unsigned char> POINT_A;
//another typedefs for another points.
Also, you probably would be fine with just std::vector<T> instead of whole points structs, but just to illustrate general approach this is how it can be done.
Since all you need is to avoid using another pointer, you can use it like this:
((struct POINT_A *)group_points).points.number_of_points = 5;
Note that the type cast has a lower precedence than that of the . operator, the parenthesis is necessary.
I need to implement but I am not sure how can I as I am completely new into this. A function called get_values that has the prototype:
void get_values(unsigned int value, unsigned int *p_lsb, unsigned int *p_msb,
unsigned int *p_combined)
The function computes the least significant byte and the most significant byte of the value
parameter. In addition, both values are combined. For this problem:
a. You may not use any loop constructs.
b. You may not use the multiplication operator (* or *=).
c. Your code must work for unsigned integers of any size (4 bytes, 8 bytes, etc.).
d. To combine the values, append the least significant byte to the most significant one.
e. Your implementation should be efficient.
The following driver (and associated output) provides an example of using the function you are
expected to write. Notice that in this example an unsigned int is 4 bytes, but your function
needs to work with an unsigned int of any size.
Driver
int main() {
unsigned int value = 0xabcdfaec, lsb, msb, combined;
get_values(value, &lsb, &msb, &combined);
printf("Value: %x, lsb: %x, msb: %x, combined: %x\n", value, lsb, msb, combined);
return 0;
}
Output
Value: abcdfaec, lsb: ec, msb: ab, combined: abec
I think you want to look into bitwise and and bit shifting operators. The last piece of the puzzle might be the sizeof() operator if the question is asking that the code should work with platforms with different sized int types.
The reason why I ask this is because there is some strange bug in my code and I suspect it could be some aliasing problem:
__shared__ float x[32];
__shared__ unsigned int xsum[32];
int idx=threadIdx.x;
unsigned char * xchar=(unsigned char *)x;
//...do something
if (threadIdx.x<32)
{
xchar[4*idx]&=somestring[0];
xchar[4*idx+1]&=somestring[1];
xchar[4*idx+2]&=somestring[2];
xchar[4*idx+3]&=somestring[3];
xsum[idx]+=*((unsigned int *)(x+idx));//<-Looks like the compiler sometimes fail to recongize this as the aliasing of xchar;
};
The compiler only needs to honour aliasing between compatible types. Since char and float are not compatible, the compiler is free to assume the pointers never alias.
If you want to do bitwise operations on float, firstly convert (via __float_as_int()) to unsigned integer, then operate on that, and finally convert back to float (using __int_as_float()).
I think you have a race condition here. But I don't know what is somestring. If it is the same for all threads you can do like this:
__shared__ float x[32];
unsigned char * xchar=(unsigned char *)x;
//...do something
if(threadIdx.x<4) {
xchar[threadIdx.x]&=somestring[threadIdx.x];
}
__syncthreads();
unsigned int xsum+=*((unsigned int *)x);
It means that every thread shares the same array and therefore, xsum is the same between all threads. If you want that each thread has its own array, you have to allocate an array of 32*number_of_threads_in_block and use an offset.
PS: the code above works only in 1D block. In 2D or 3D you have to compute you own threadID and be sure that only 4 threads execute the code.
Which of the following two approches is more efficient on an ATmega328P?
unsigned int value;
unsigned char char_high, char_low;
char_high = value>>8;
value = value<<8;
char_low = value>>8;
OR
unsigned int value;
unsigned char char_high, char_low;
char_high = value>>8;
char_low = value & 0xff;
You really should measure. I won't answer your question (since you'd benefit more from measuring than I would), but I'll give you a third option:
struct {
union {
uint16_t big;
uint8_t small[2];
};
} nums;
(be aware of the difference between big endian and little endian here)
One option would be to measure it (as has already been said).
Or, compile both and see what the assembly language output looks like.
but actually, the 2nd code you have won't work - if you take value << 8 and assign it to a char, all you get is zero in the char. The subsequent >>8 will still leave you with zero.