实现以下目标最有效的算法是什么:
0010 0000 => 0000 0100
从MSB->LSB转换为LSB->MSB。所有位都必须反转;也就是说，这不是字节交换。
当前回答
原生ARM指令“rbit”可以用1个cpu周期和1个额外的cpu寄存器来完成，不可能被击败。
其他回答
注意:下面所有的算法都是用C语言编写的，但是应该可以移植到你所选择的语言中(当它们没有那么快的时候不要看着我:)
选项
低内存(32位int, 32位机器)(从这里):
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位整数，或者为了速度而牺牲内存(假设L1数据缓存足够大)，并使用一个64k条目查找表一次反向16位。
其他人
简单的
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位整型上执行此操作，只需反转每个字节中的位，并反转字节的顺序。那就是:
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
我对两种最有希望的解决方案进行了基准测试，查找表和按位and(第一个)。测试机器是一台带有4GB DDR2-800和酷睿2 Duo T7500 @ 2.4GHz, 4MB L2缓存的笔记本电脑;YMMV。我在64位Linux上使用gcc 4.3.2。OpenMP(和GCC绑定)用于高分辨率计时器。
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\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;
}
我在几个不同的优化中尝试了这两种方法，在每个级别上进行了3次试验，每次试验逆转了1亿个随机无符号整数。对于查找表选项，我尝试了按位hacks页面上给出的两种方案(选项1和2)。结果如下所示。
位和
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
查阅表(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
如果您关心性能，请使用选项1(字节寻址速度慢，这是意料中事)的查找表。如果您需要从系统中挤出最后一个字节的内存(如果您关心位反转的性能，您可能会这样做)，那么按位- and方法的优化版本也不会太糟糕。
警告
是的，我知道基准代码完全是一种hack。关于如何改进它的建议非常受欢迎。我知道的事情:
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
编辑:我还尝试在我的机器上使用uint64_t类型，看看是否有任何性能提升。性能比32位快10%左右，无论您是一次使用64位类型对两个32位整型反转位，还是实际上将64位值的一半反转位，性能都几乎相同。汇编代码如下所示(对于前一种情况，一次为两个32位整型反转位):
.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
假设你有一个比特数组，怎么样: 1. 从MSB开始，将比特一个一个地推入堆栈。 2. 从这个堆栈弹出位到另一个数组(如果你想节省空间，也可以是同一个数组)，将第一个弹出位放入MSB，然后从那里继续到较低的有效位。
Stack stack = new Stack();
Bit[] bits = new Bit[] { 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
for (int i = 0; i < bits.Length; i++)
{
stack.push(bits[i]);
}
for (int i = 0; i < bits.Length; i++)
{
bits[i] = stack.pop();
}
这不是人类能做的工作!．.． 但非常适合做机器
这是2015年，距离第一次提出这个问题已经过去了6年。编译器从此成为我们的主人，而我们作为人类的工作只是帮助它们。那么，把我们的意图传达给机器的最佳方式是什么呢?
位反转是如此普遍，以至于你不得不怀疑为什么x86不断增长的ISA没有包含一次性完成它的指令。
原因是:如果你给编译器一个真正简洁的意图，位反转应该只需要大约20个CPU周期。让我向你展示如何制作reverse()并使用它:
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdio.h>
uint64_t reverse(const uint64_t n,
const uint64_t k)
{
uint64_t r, i;
for (r = 0, i = 0; i < k; ++i)
r |= ((n >> i) & 1) << (k - i - 1);
return r;
}
int main()
{
const uint64_t size = 64;
uint64_t sum = 0;
uint64_t a;
for (a = 0; a < (uint64_t)1 << 30; ++a)
sum += reverse(a, size);
printf("%" PRIu64 "\n", sum);
return 0;
}
使用Clang版本>= 3.6，-O3， -march=native(用Haswell测试)编译这个示例程序，使用新的AVX2指令提供美术质量代码，运行时为11秒处理~ 10亿reverse()秒。这是~10 ns每反向()，0.5 ns CPU周期假设2 GHz，我们将达到甜蜜的20个CPU周期。
对于单个大数组，您可以在访问RAM一次所需的时间内放入10个reverse() ! 你可以在访问L2缓存LUT两次的时间里放入1个reverse()。
注意:这个示例代码应该可以作为一个不错的基准运行几年，但是一旦编译器足够聪明，可以优化main()只输出最终结果，而不是真正计算任何东西，它最终就会开始显得过时了。但目前它只用于展示reverse()。
好吧，这肯定不会是一个像Matt J的答案，但希望它仍然有用。
size_t reverse(size_t n, unsigned int bytes)
{
__asm__("BSWAP %0" : "=r"(n) : "0"(n));
n >>= ((sizeof(size_t) - bytes) * 8);
n = ((n & 0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) >> 1) | ((n & 0x5555555555555555) << 1);
n = ((n & 0xcccccccccccccccc) >> 2) | ((n & 0x3333333333333333) << 2);
n = ((n & 0xf0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0) >> 4) | ((n & 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0f) << 4);
return n;
}
这与Matt的最佳算法完全相同，除了有一个叫做BSWAP的小指令，它交换64位数字的字节(而不是位)。所以b7 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0变成了b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7。由于我们处理的是32位数字，所以需要将字节交换后的数字向下移动32位。这只留给我们交换每个字节的8位的任务，这是完成的，瞧!我们做完了。
计时:在我的机器上，Matt的算法每次试验只需0.52秒。我的每次试验大约耗时0.42秒。我认为快20%还不错。
如果你担心指令BSWAP的可用性，维基百科列出了指令BSWAP是与1989年推出的80846一起添加的。值得注意的是，维基百科还指出，这条指令只适用于32位寄存器，这显然不是我的机器上的情况，它只适用于64位寄存器。
此方法同样适用于任何整型数据类型，因此可以通过传递所需的字节数来简单地推广该方法:
size_t reverse(size_t n, unsigned int bytes)
{
__asm__("BSWAP %0" : "=r"(n) : "0"(n));
n >>= ((sizeof(size_t) - bytes) * 8);
n = ((n & 0xaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) >> 1) | ((n & 0x5555555555555555) << 1);
n = ((n & 0xcccccccccccccccc) >> 2) | ((n & 0x3333333333333333) << 2);
n = ((n & 0xf0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0) >> 4) | ((n & 0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0f) << 4);
return n;
}
它可以被称为:
n = reverse(n, sizeof(char));//only reverse 8 bits
n = reverse(n, sizeof(short));//reverse 16 bits
n = reverse(n, sizeof(int));//reverse 32 bits
n = reverse(n, sizeof(size_t));//reverse 64 bits
编译器应该能够优化掉额外的形参(假设编译器内联了函数)，对于sizeof(size_t)情况，右移将被完全删除。注意，如果传递sizeof(char)， GCC至少不能删除BSWAP和右移。
我很好奇原始旋转有多快。 在我的机器(i7@2600)上，1,500,150,000次迭代的平均值为27.28 ns(在131,071个64位整数的随机集上)。
优点:占用内存少，代码简单。我想说它也没有那么大。对于任何输入(128个算术SHIFT运算+ 64个逻辑and运算+ 64个逻辑OR运算)，所需的时间都是可预测的常量。
我比较了@Matt J获得的最佳时间，他有公认的答案。如果我没有看错他的答案，他得到的最好结果是0.631739秒，100万次迭代，这导致平均每次旋转631 ns。
我使用的代码片段如下:
unsigned long long reverse_long(unsigned long long x)
{
return (((x >> 0) & 1) << 63) |
(((x >> 1) & 1) << 62) |
(((x >> 2) & 1) << 61) |
(((x >> 3) & 1) << 60) |
(((x >> 4) & 1) << 59) |
(((x >> 5) & 1) << 58) |
(((x >> 6) & 1) << 57) |
(((x >> 7) & 1) << 56) |
(((x >> 8) & 1) << 55) |
(((x >> 9) & 1) << 54) |
(((x >> 10) & 1) << 53) |
(((x >> 11) & 1) << 52) |
(((x >> 12) & 1) << 51) |
(((x >> 13) & 1) << 50) |
(((x >> 14) & 1) << 49) |
(((x >> 15) & 1) << 48) |
(((x >> 16) & 1) << 47) |
(((x >> 17) & 1) << 46) |
(((x >> 18) & 1) << 45) |
(((x >> 19) & 1) << 44) |
(((x >> 20) & 1) << 43) |
(((x >> 21) & 1) << 42) |
(((x >> 22) & 1) << 41) |
(((x >> 23) & 1) << 40) |
(((x >> 24) & 1) << 39) |
(((x >> 25) & 1) << 38) |
(((x >> 26) & 1) << 37) |
(((x >> 27) & 1) << 36) |
(((x >> 28) & 1) << 35) |
(((x >> 29) & 1) << 34) |
(((x >> 30) & 1) << 33) |
(((x >> 31) & 1) << 32) |
(((x >> 32) & 1) << 31) |
(((x >> 33) & 1) << 30) |
(((x >> 34) & 1) << 29) |
(((x >> 35) & 1) << 28) |
(((x >> 36) & 1) << 27) |
(((x >> 37) & 1) << 26) |
(((x >> 38) & 1) << 25) |
(((x >> 39) & 1) << 24) |
(((x >> 40) & 1) << 23) |
(((x >> 41) & 1) << 22) |
(((x >> 42) & 1) << 21) |
(((x >> 43) & 1) << 20) |
(((x >> 44) & 1) << 19) |
(((x >> 45) & 1) << 18) |
(((x >> 46) & 1) << 17) |
(((x >> 47) & 1) << 16) |
(((x >> 48) & 1) << 15) |
(((x >> 49) & 1) << 14) |
(((x >> 50) & 1) << 13) |
(((x >> 51) & 1) << 12) |
(((x >> 52) & 1) << 11) |
(((x >> 53) & 1) << 10) |
(((x >> 54) & 1) << 9) |
(((x >> 55) & 1) << 8) |
(((x >> 56) & 1) << 7) |
(((x >> 57) & 1) << 6) |
(((x >> 58) & 1) << 5) |
(((x >> 59) & 1) << 4) |
(((x >> 60) & 1) << 3) |
(((x >> 61) & 1) << 2) |
(((x >> 62) & 1) << 1) |
(((x >> 63) & 1) << 0);
}
