Join the Stack Overflow Community
Stack Overflow is a community of 6.5 million programmers, just like you, helping each other.
Join them; it only takes a minute:
Sign up

How do I set, clear and toggle a bit in C/C++?

share|improve this question
17  
read this: graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html and, when you'll master this, read this one: realtimecollisiondetection.net/blog/?p=78 – ugasoft Sep 18 '08 at 16:01
    
You may also be interested in checking out The Bit Twiddler, Bit Twiddling Hacks, and The Aggregate Magic Algorithms. – anon Jan 5 '09 at 11:13
3  
This link helped me to understand that how these operations actually work - cs.umd.edu/class/sum2003/cmsc311/Notes/BitOp/setBitI.html Here you can find more interesting operations - cs.umd.edu/class/sum2003/cmsc311/Notes – rajya vardhan Feb 2 '13 at 21:17
7  
I can easily imagine this wasn't for the question itself but for spawning a very useful reference guide. Considering I got here when I needed a bit of information, anyway. – Joey van Hummel Aug 11 '13 at 21:21
2  
@glglgl /Jonathon it has enough significance for C++ to be tagged as such. It's a historic question with lots of traffic and the C++ tag will help fellow interested programmers find it through a google search. – Luchian Grigore Nov 4 '13 at 18:57

22 Answers 22

up vote 2354 down vote accepted

Setting a bit

Use the bitwise OR operator (|) to set a bit.

number |= 1 << x;

That will set bit x.

Clearing a bit

Use the bitwise AND operator (&) to clear a bit.

number &= ~(1 << x);

That will clear bit x. You must invert the bit string with the bitwise NOT operator (~), then AND it.

Toggling a bit

The XOR operator (^) can be used to toggle a bit.

number ^= 1 << x;

That will toggle bit x.

Checking a bit

You didn't ask for this but I might as well add it.

To check a bit, shift the number x to the right, then bitwise AND it:

bit = (number >> x) & 1;

That will put the value of bit x into the variable bit.

Changing the nth bit to x

Setting the nth bit to either 1 or 0 can be achieved with the following:

number ^= (-x ^ number) & (1 << n);

Bit n will be set if x is 1, and cleared if x is 0.

share|improve this answer
69  
I would like to note that on platforms that have native support for bit set/clear (ex, AVR microcontrollers), compilers will often translate 'myByte |= (1 << x)' into the native bit set/clear instructions whenever x is a constant, ex: (1 << 5), or const unsigned x = 5. – Aaron Sep 17 '08 at 17:13
40  
bit = number & (1 << x); will not put the value of bit x into bit unless bit has type _Bool (<stdbool.h>). Otherwise, bit = !!(number & (1 << x)); will.. – Chris Nov 16 '08 at 7:49
12  
BTW the bit-fiddling here will silently fail if number is wider than int – anatolyg May 9 '13 at 15:58
14  
why don't you change the last one to bit = (number >> x) & 1 – aaronman Jun 26 '13 at 18:47
25  
1 is an int literal, which is signed. So all the operations here operate on signed numbers, which is not well defined by the standards. The standards does not guarantee two's complement or arithmetic shift so it is better to use 1U. – Siyuan Ren Dec 10 '13 at 8:53

Using the Standard C++ Library: std::bitset<N>.

Or the Boost version: boost::dynamic_bitset.

There is no need to roll your own:

#include <bitset>
#include <iostream>

int main()
{
    std::bitset<5> x;

    x[1] = 1;
    x[2] = 0;
    // Note x[0-4]  valid

    std::cout << x << std::endl;
}

[Alpha:] > ./a.out
00010

The Boost version allows a runtime sized bitset compared with an Standard Library compile-time sized bitset.

share|improve this answer
13  
+1. Not that std::bitset is usable from "C", but as the author tagged his/her question with "C++", AFAIK, your answer is the best around here... std::vector<bool> is another way, if one knows its pros and its cons – paercebal Sep 19 '08 at 18:16
11  
@andrewdotnich: vector<bool> is (unfortunately) a specialization that stores the values as bits. See gotw.ca/publications/mill09.htm for more info... – Niklas Dec 12 '08 at 20:40
40  
Maybe nobody mentioned it because this was tagged embedded. In most embedded systems you avoid STL like the plague. And boost support is likely a very rare bird to spot among most embedded compilers. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:47
10  
@Martin It is very true. Besides specific performance killers like STL and templates, many embedded systems even avoid the whole standard libraries entirely, because they are such a pain to verify. Most of the embedded branch is embracing standards like MISRA, that requires static code analysis tools (any software professionals should be using such tools btw, not just embedded folks). Generally people have better things to do than run static analysis through the whole standard library - if its source code is even available to them on the specific compiler. – Lundin Aug 19 '11 at 6:26
17  
@Lundin: Your statements are excessively broad (thus useless to argue about). I am sure that I can find situations were they are true. This does not change my initial point. Both of these classes are perfectly fine for use in embedded systems (and I know for a fact that they are used). Your initial point about STL/Boost not being used on embedded systems is also wrong. I am sure there are systems that don't use them and even the systems that do use them they are used judiciously but saying they are not used is just not correct (because there are systems were they are used). – Loki Astari Aug 19 '11 at 6:41

The other option is to use bit fields:

struct bits {
    unsigned int a:1;
    unsigned int b:1;
    unsigned int c:1;
};

struct bits mybits;

defines a 3-bit field (actually, it's three 1-bit felds). Bit operations now become a bit (haha) simpler:

To set or clear a bit:

mybits.b = 1;
mybits.c = 0;

To toggle a bit:

mybits.a = !mybits.a;
mybits.b = ~mybits.b;
mybits.c ^= 1;  /* all work */

Checking a bit:

if (mybits.c)  //if mybits.c is non zero the next line below will execute

This only works with fixed-size bit fields. Otherwise you have to resort to the bit-twiddling techniques described in previous posts.

share|improve this answer
4  
ah, what's that :1 initialization called.. – bobobobo Aug 8 '09 at 3:10
39  
I've always found using bitfields is a bad idea. You have no control over the order in which bits are allocated (from the top or the bottom), which makes it impossible to serialize the value in a stable/portable way except bit-at-a-time. It's also impossible to mix DIY bit arithmetic with bitfields, for example making a mask that tests for several bits at once. You can of course use && and hope the compiler will optimize it correctly... – R.. Jun 28 '10 at 6:17
14  
Bit fields are bad in so many ways, I could almost write a book about it. In fact I almost had to do that for a bit field program that needed MISRA-C compliance. MISRA-C enforces all implementation-defined behavior to be documented, so I ended up writing quite an essay about everything that can go wrong in bit fields. Bit order, endianess, padding bits, padding bytes, various other alignment issues, implicit and explicit type conversions to and from a bit field, UB if int isn't used and so on. Instead, use bitwise-operators for less bugs and portable code. Bit fields are completely redundant. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:19
28  
Like most language features, bit fields can be used correctly or they can be abused. If you need to pack several small values into a single int, bit fields can be very useful. On the other hand, if you start making assumptions about how the bit fields map to the actual containing int, you're just asking for trouble. – Ferruccio Aug 18 '11 at 19:35
2  
@endolith: That would not be a good idea. You could make it work, but it wouldn't necessarily be portable to a different processor, or to a different compiler or even to the next release of the same compiler. – Ferruccio Mar 8 '12 at 21:02

It is sometimes worth using an enum to name the bits:

enum ThingFlags = {
  ThingMask  = 0x0000,
  ThingFlag0 = 1 << 0,
  ThingFlag1 = 1 << 1,
  ThingError = 1 << 8,
}

Then use the names later on. I.e. write

thingstate |= ThingFlag1;
thingstate &= ~ThingFlag0;
if (thing & ThingError) {...}

to set, clear and test. This way you hide the magic numbers from the rest of your code.

Other than that I endorse Jeremy's solution.

share|improve this answer
1  
Alternately you could make a clearbits() function instead of &= ~. Why are you using an enum for this? I thought those were for creating a bunch of unique variables with hidden arbitrary value, but you're assigning a definite value to each one. So what's the benefit vs just defining them as variables? – endolith Dec 20 '11 at 15:09
2  
@endolith: The use of enums for sets of related constants goes back a long way in c programing. I suspect that with modern compilers the only advantage over const short or whatever is that they are explicitly grouped together. And when you want them for something other than bitmasks you get the automatic numbering. In c++ of course, they also form distinct types which gives you a little extras static error checking. – dmckee Dec 22 '11 at 1:15
    
You'll get into undefined enum constants if you don't define a constant for each of the possible values of the bits. What's the enum ThingFlags value for ThingError|ThingFlag1, for example? – Luis Colorado Sep 30 '14 at 10:55
1  
If you use this method please keep in mind that enum constants are always of signed type int. This can cause all manner of subtle bugs because of implicit integer promotion or bitwise operations on signed types. thingstate = ThingFlag1 >> 1 will for example invoke implementation-defined behavior. thingstate = (ThingFlag1 >> x) << y can invoke undefined behavior. And so on. To be safe, always cast to an unsigned type. – Lundin Dec 14 '15 at 9:25
    
@Lundin: As of C++11, you can set the underlying type of an enumeration, e.g.: enum My16Bits: unsigned short { ... }; – Aiken Drum Mar 15 at 15:01

I use macros defined in a header file to handle bit set and clear:

/* a=target variable, b=bit number to act upon 0-n */
#define BIT_SET(a,b) ((a) |= (1<<(b)))
#define BIT_CLEAR(a,b) ((a) &= ~(1<<(b)))
#define BIT_FLIP(a,b) ((a) ^= (1<<(b)))
#define BIT_CHECK(a,b) ((a) & (1<<(b)))

/* x=target variable, y=mask */
#define BITMASK_SET(x,y) ((x) |= (y))
#define BITMASK_CLEAR(x,y) ((x) &= (~(y)))
#define BITMASK_FLIP(x,y) ((x) ^= (y))
#define BITMASK_CHECK(x,y) (((x) & (y)) == (y))
share|improve this answer
14  
Uh I realize this is a 5 year old post but there is no argument duplication in any of those macros, Dan – Robert Kelly Oct 2 '13 at 14:53
6  
BITMASK_CHECK(x,y) ((x) & (y)) must be ((x) & (y)) == (y) otherwise it returns incorrect result on multibit mask (ex. 5 vs. 3) /*Hello to all gravediggers :)*/ – brigadir Dec 11 '14 at 12:00
4  
1 should be (uintmax_t)1 or similar in case anybody tries to use these macros on a long or larger type – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:50

From snip-c.zip's bitops.how:

/*
**  Bit set, clear, and test operations
**
**  public domain snippet by Bob Stout
*/

typedef enum {ERROR = -1, FALSE, TRUE} LOGICAL;

#define BOOL(x) (!(!(x)))

#define BitSet(arg,posn) ((arg) | (1L << (posn)))
#define BitClr(arg,posn) ((arg) & ~(1L << (posn)))
#define BitTst(arg,posn) BOOL((arg) & (1L << (posn)))
#define BitFlp(arg,posn) ((arg) ^ (1L << (posn)))

OK, let's analyze things...

The common expression in all of these that you seem to be having problems with is "(1L << (posn))". All this does is create a mask with a single bit on and which will work with any integer type. The "posn" argument specifies the position where you want the bit. If posn==0, then this expression will evaluate to:

    0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 binary.

If posn==8, it will evaluate to

    0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 binary.

In other words, it simply creates a field of 0's with a 1 at the specified position. The only tricky part is in the BitClr() macro where we need to set a single 0 bit in a field of 1's. This is accomplished by using the 1's complement of the same expression as denoted by the tilde (~) operator.

Once the mask is created it's applied to the argument just as you suggest, by use of the bitwise and (&), or (|), and xor (^) operators. Since the mask is of type long, the macros will work just as well on char's, short's, int's, or long's.

The bottom line is that this is a general solution to an entire class of problems. It is, of course, possible and even appropriate to rewrite the equivalent of any of these macros with explicit mask values every time you need one, but why do it? Remember, the macro substitution occurs in the preprocessor and so the generated code will reflect the fact that the values are considered constant by the compiler - i.e. it's just as efficient to use the generalized macros as to "reinvent the wheel" every time you need to do bit manipulation.

Unconvinced? Here's some test code - I used Watcom C with full optimization and without using _cdecl so the resulting disassembly would be as clean as possible:

----[ TEST.C ]----------------------------------------------------------------

#define BOOL(x) (!(!(x)))

#define BitSet(arg,posn) ((arg) | (1L << (posn)))
#define BitClr(arg,posn) ((arg) & ~(1L << (posn)))
#define BitTst(arg,posn) BOOL((arg) & (1L << (posn)))
#define BitFlp(arg,posn) ((arg) ^ (1L << (posn)))

int bitmanip(int word)
{
      word = BitSet(word, 2);
      word = BitSet(word, 7);
      word = BitClr(word, 3);
      word = BitFlp(word, 9);
      return word;
}

----[ TEST.OUT (disassembled) ]-----------------------------------------------

Module: C:\BINK\tst.c Group: 'DGROUP' CONST,CONST2,_DATA,_BSS

Segment: TEXT BYTE 00000008 bytes
0000 0c 84 bitmanip
or al,84H 0002 80 f4 02 xor ah,02H 0005 24 f7 and al,0f7H 0007 c3 ret

No disassembly errors

----[ finis ]-----------------------------------------------------------------

share|improve this answer
2  
2 things about this: (1) in perusing your macros, some may incorrectly believe that the macros actually set/clear/flip bits in the arg, however there is no assignment; (2) your test.c is not complete; I suspect if you ran more cases you'd find a problem (reader exercise) – Dan Oct 18 '08 at 1:51
10  
-1 This is just weird obfuscation. Never re-invent the C language by hiding away language syntax behind macros, it is very bad practice. Then some oddities: first, 1L is signed, meaning all bit operations will be performed on a signed type. Everything passed to these macros will return as signed long. Not good. Second, this will work very inefficiently on smaller CPUs as it enforces long when the operations could have been on int level. Third, function-like macros are the root of all evil: you have no type safety whatsoever. Also, the previous comment about no assignment is very valid. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:14
1  
This will fail if arg is long long. 1L needs to be the widest possible type, so (uintmax_t)1 . (You might get away with 1ull) – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:51

For the beginner I would like to explain a bit more with an example:

Example:

value is 0x55;
bitnum : 3rd.

The & operator is used check the bit:

0101 0101
&
0000 1000
___________
0000 0000 (mean 0: False). It will work fine if the third bit is 1 (then the answer will be True)

Toggle or Flip:

0101 0101
^
0000 1000
___________
0101 1101 (Flip the third bit without affecting other bits)

| operator: set the bit

0101 0101
|
0000 1000
___________
0101 1101 (set the third bit without affecting other bits)
share|improve this answer

Here's my favorite bit arithmetic macro, which works for any type of unsigned integer array from unsigned char up to size_t (which is the biggest type that should be efficient to work with):

#define BITOP(a,b,op) \
 ((a)[(size_t)(b)/(8*sizeof *(a))] op ((size_t)1<<((size_t)(b)%(8*sizeof *(a)))))

To set a bit:

BITOP(array, bit, |=);

To clear a bit:

BITOP(array, bit, &=~);

To toggle a bit:

BITOP(array, bit, ^=);

To test a bit:

if (BITOP(array, bit, &)) ...

etc.

share|improve this answer
3  
It's good to read but one should be aware of possible side effects. Using BITOP(array, bit++, |=); in a loop will most likely not do what the caller wants. – foraidt Jul 13 '10 at 8:27
    
Indeed. =) One variant you might prefer is to separate it into 2 macros, 1 for addressing the array element and the other for shifting the bit into place, ala BITCELL(a,b) |= BITMASK(a,b); (both take a as an argument to determine the size, but the latter would never evaluate a since it appears only in sizeof). – R.. Jul 13 '10 at 9:19
    
@R.. This answer is really old, but I'd probably prefer a function to a macro in this case. – PC Luddite Oct 23 '15 at 17:08

Use the bitwise operators: & |

To set last bit in 000b:

foo = foo | 001b

To check last bit in foo:

if ( foo & 001b ) ....

To clear last bit in foo:

foo = foo & 110b

I used XXXb for clarity. You'll probably be working with hex representation, depending on the data structure in which you're packing bits.

share|improve this answer
    
There is no binary notation in C. Binary integer constants is a non-standard extension. – Lundin Dec 14 '15 at 9:14

As this is tagged "embedded" I'll assume you're using a microcontroller. All of the above suggestions are valid & work (read-modify-write, unions, structs, etc.).

However, during a bout of oscilloscope-based debugging I was amazed to find that these methods have a considerable overhead in CPU cycles compared to writing a value directly to the micro's PORTnSET / PORTnCLEAR registers which makes a real difference where there are tight loops / high-frequency ISR's toggling pins.

For those unfamiliar: In my example, the micro has a general pin-state register PORTn which reflects the output pins, so doing PORTn |= BIT_TO_SET results in a read-modify-write to that register. However, the PORTnSET / PORTnCLEAR registers take a '1' to mean "please make this bit 1" (SET) or "please make this bit zero" (CLEAR) and a '0' to mean "leave the pin alone". so, you end up with two port addresses depending whether you're setting or clearing the bit (not always convenient) but a much faster reaction and smaller assembled code.

share|improve this answer
    
Good to know there may be faster options. What was the micro? – JeffV Jun 14 '12 at 16:58
    
Micro was Coldfire MCF52259, using C in Codewarrior. Looking at the disassembler / asm is a useful exercise as it shows all the steps the CPU has to go through to do even the most basic operation. <br>We also spotted other CPU-hogging instructions in time-critical loops - constraining a variable by doing var %= max_val costs a pile of CPU cycles every time round, while doing if(var > max_val)var-=max_val uses only a couple of instructions. <br>A good guide to a few more tricks is here: codeproject.com/Articles/6154/… – John U Jun 19 '12 at 17:33
    
Even more importantly, the helper memory-mapped I/O registers provide a mechanism for atomic updates. Read/modify/write can go very badly if the sequence is interrupted. – Ben Voigt Feb 22 '15 at 2:16
    
Keep in mind that all port registers will be defined as volatile and therefore the compiler is unable to perform any optimizations on code involving such registers. Therefore, it is good practice to disassemble such code and see how it turned out on assembler level. – Lundin Dec 14 '15 at 9:42

The bitfield approach has other advantages in the embedded arena. You can define a struct that maps directly onto the bits in a particular hardware register.

struct HwRegister {
    unsigned int errorFlag:1;  // one-bit flag field
    unsigned int Mode:3;       // three-bit mode field
    unsigned int StatusCode:4;  // four-bit status code
};

struct HwRegister CR3342_AReg;

You need to be aware of the bit packing order - I think it's MSB first, but this may be implementation-dependent. Also, verify how your compiler handlers fields crossing byte boundaries.

You can then read, write, test the individual values as before.

share|improve this answer
1  
Pretty much everything about bit-fields is implementation-defined. Even if you manage to find out all details regarding how your particular compiler implements them, using them in your code will most certainly make it non-portable. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:50
    
@Lundin - True, but embedded system bit-fiddling (particularly in hardware registers, which is what my answer relates to) is never going to be usefully portable anyway. – Roddy Aug 19 '11 at 20:13
1  
Not between entirely different CPUs perhaps. But you most likely want it to be portable between compilers and between different projects. And there is a lot of embedded "bit-fiddling" that isn't related to the hardware at all, such as data protocol encoding/decoding. – Lundin Aug 20 '11 at 9:35
    
...and if you get in the habit of using bit fields doing embedded programming, you'll find your X86 code runs faster, and leaner too. Not in simple benchmarks where you have the whole machine to crush the benchmark, but in real-world multi-tasking environments where programs compete for resources. Advantage CISC - whose original design goal was to make up for CPUs faster than buses and slow memory. – RocketRoy Feb 15 '13 at 22:26

More general, for arbitrary sized bitmaps:

#define BITS 8
#define BIT_SET(  p, n) (p[(n)/BITS] |=  (0x80>>((n)%BITS)))
#define BIT_CLEAR(p, n) (p[(n)/BITS] &= ~(0x80>>((n)%BITS)))
#define BIT_ISSET(p, n) (p[(n)/BITS] &   (0x80>>((n)%BITS)))
share|improve this answer
    
CHAR_BIT is already defined by limits.h, you don't need to put in your own BITS (and in fact you make your code worse by doing so) – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:52

Check a bit at an arbitrary location in a variable of arbitrary type:

#define bit_test(x, y)  ( ( ((const char*)&(x))[(y)>>3] & 0x80 >> ((y)&0x07)) >> (7-((y)&0x07) ) )

Sample usage:

int main(void)
{
    unsigned char arr[8] = { 0x01, 0x23, 0x45, 0x67, 0x89, 0xAB, 0xCD, 0xEF };

    for (int ix = 0; ix < 64; ++ix)
        printf("bit %d is %d\n", ix, bit_test(arr, ix));

    return 0;
}

Notes: This is designed to be fast (given its flexibility) and non-branchy. It results in efficient SPARC machine code when compiled Sun Studio 8; I've also tested it using MSVC++ 2008 on amd64. It's possible to make similar macros for setting and clearing bits. The key difference of this solution compared with many others here is that it works for any location in pretty much any type of variable.

share|improve this answer

If you're doing a lot of bit twiddling you might want to use masks which will make the whole thing quicker. The following functions are very fast and still flexible (they allow bit twiddling in bit maps of any size).

const unsigned char TQuickByteMask[8] = 
{
   0x01, 0x02, 0x04, 0x08,
   0x10, 0x20, 0x40, 0x80,
};




/** Set bit in any sized bit mask.
 *
 * @return    none
 *
 * @param     bit    - Bit number.
 * @param     bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 */
void TSetBit( short bit, unsigned char *bitmap)
{
    short n, x;

    x = bit / 8;        // Index to byte.
    n = bit % 8;        // Specific bit in byte.

    bitmap[x] |= TQuickByteMask[n];     // Set bit.
}



/** Reset bit in any sized mask.
 *
 * @return  None
 *
 * @param   bit    - Bit number.
 * @param   bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 */
void TResetBit( short bit, unsigned char *bitmap)
{
    short n, x;

    x = bit / 8;        // Index to byte.
    n = bit % 8;        // Specific bit in byte.

    bitmap[x] &= (~TQuickByteMask[n]);  // Reset bit.
}




/** Toggle bit in any sized bit mask.
 *
 * @return   none
 *
 * @param   bit    - Bit number.
 * @param   bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 */
void TToggleBit( short bit, unsigned char *bitmap)
{
    short n, x;

    x = bit / 8;        // Index to byte.
    n = bit % 8;        // Specific bit in byte.

    bitmap[x] ^= TQuickByteMask[n];     // Toggle bit.
}




/** Checks specified bit.
 *
 * @return  1 if bit set else 0.
 *
 * @param   bit    - Bit number.
 * @param   bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 */
short TIsBitSet( short bit, const unsigned char *bitmap)
{
    short n, x;

    x = bit / 8;    // Index to byte.
    n = bit % 8;    // Specific bit in byte.

    // Test bit (logigal AND).
    if (bitmap[x] & TQuickByteMask[n])
        return 1;

    return 0;
}





/** Checks specified bit.
 *
 * @return  1 if bit reset else 0.
 *
 * @param   bit    - Bit number.
 * @param   bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 */
short TIsBitReset( short bit, const unsigned char *bitmap)
{
    return TIsBitSet( bit, bitmap) ^ 1;
}



/** Count number of bits set in a bitmap.
 *
 * @return   Number of bits set.
 *
 * @param    bitmap - Pointer to bitmap.
 * @param    size   - Bitmap size (in bits).
 *
 * @note    Not very efficient in terms of execution speed. If you are doing
 *      some computationally intense stuff you may need a more complex
 *      implementation which would be faster (especially for big bitmaps).
 *      See (http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html).
 */
int TCountBits( const unsigned char *bitmap, int size)
{
    int i, count=0;

    for (i=0; i<size; i++)
        if (TIsBitSet( i, bitmap)) count++;

    return count;
}

Note, to set bit 'n' in a 16 bit integer you do the following:

TSetBit( n, &my_int);

It's up to you to ensure that the bit number is within the range of the bit map that you pass. Note that for little endian processors that bytes, words, dwords,qwords etc, map correctly to each other in memory (main reason that little endian processors are 'better' than big-endian processors, ah, I feel a flame war coming on...).

share|improve this answer
1  
Don't use a table for a function that can be implemented with a single operator. TQuickByteMask[n] is equivalent to (1<<n). Also, making your arguments short is a very bad idea. The / and % will actually be a division, not bitshift/bitwise and, because signed division by a power of 2 cannot be implemented bitwise. You should make the argument type unsigned int! – R.. Jun 28 '10 at 6:24
    
What's the point with this? It only makes the code slower and harder to read? I can't see a single advantage with it. 1u << n is easier to read for C programmers, and can hopefully be translated into a single clock tick CPU instruction. Your division on the other hand, will be translated to something around 10 ticks, or even as bad as up to 100 ticks, depending on how poorly the specific architecture handles division. As for the bitmap feature, it would make more sense to have a lookup table translating each bit index to a byte index, to optimize for speed. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:32
    
As for big/little endian, big endian will map integers and raw data (for example strings) in the same way: left-to-right msb to lsb throughout the whole bitmap. While little endian will map integers left to right as 7-0, 15-8, 23-18, 31-24, but raw data is still left-to-right msb to lsb. So how little endian is better for your particular algorithm is completely beyond me, it seems to be the opposite. – Lundin Aug 18 '11 at 19:42
1  
@R.. A table can be useful if your plattform can't shift efficiently, like old microchip mcu's, but of course then the division in the sample is absolutly inefficient – jeb Nov 18 '11 at 11:28

Use this:

int ToggleNthBit ( unsigned char n, int num )
{
    if(num & (1 << n))
        num &= ~(1 << n);
    else
        num |= (1 << n);

    return num;
}
share|improve this answer
3  
Well, it uses inefficient branching. – asdf Jul 2 '11 at 19:33
1  
@asdf The compiler's job is to output the most efficient binary, the programmer's job is to write clear code – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:53
    
This is a good demonstration of testing, setting, and clearing a particular bit. However it's a very bad approach for toggling a bit. – Ben Voigt Feb 22 '15 at 2:18

This program is to change any data bit from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0:

{
    unsigned int data = 0x000000F0;
    int bitpos = 4;
    int bitvalue = 1;
    unsigned int bit = data;
    bit = (bit>>bitpos)&0x00000001;
    int invbitvalue = 0x00000001&(~bitvalue);
    printf("%x\n",bit);

    if (bitvalue == 0)
    {
        if (bit == 0)
            printf("%x\n", data);
        else
        {
             data = (data^(invbitvalue<<bitpos));
             printf("%x\n", data);
        }
    }
    else
    {
        if (bit == 1)
            printf("elseif %x\n", data);
        else
        {
            data = (data|(bitvalue<<bitpos));
            printf("else %x\n", data);
        }
    }
}
share|improve this answer

Visual C 2010, and perhaps many other compilers, have direct support for bit operations built in. Surprisingly, this works, even the sizeof() operator works properly.

bool    IsGph[256], IsNotGph[256];

//  Initialize boolean array to detect printable characters
for(i=0; i<sizeof(IsGph); i++)  {
    IsGph[i] = isgraph((unsigned char)i);
}

So, to your question, IsGph[i] =1, or IsGph[i] =0 make setting and clearing bools easy.

To find unprintable characters...

//  Initialize boolean array to detect UN-printable characters, 
//  then call function to toggle required bits true, while initializing a 2nd
//  boolean array as the complement of the 1st.
for(i=0; i<sizeof(IsGph); i++)  {
    if(IsGph[i])    {
         IsNotGph[i] = 0;
    }   else   {
         IsNotGph[i] = 1;
    }
}

Note there is nothing "special" about this code. It treats a bit like an integer - which technically, it is. A 1 bit integer that can hold 2 values, and 2 values only.

I once used this approach to find duplicate loan records, where loan_number was the ISAM key, using the 6-digit loan number as an index into the bit array. Savagely fast, and after 8 months, proved that the mainframe system we were getting the data from was in fact malfunctioning. The simplicity of bit arrays makes confidence in their correctness very high - vs a searching approach for example.

share|improve this answer
    
std::bitset is indeed implemented as bits by most compilers – galinette Nov 17 '14 at 20:03
    
@galinette, Agreed. The header file #include <bitset> is a good resource in this regard. Also, the special class vector<bool> for when you need the size of the vector to change. The C++ STL, 2nd Edition, Nicolai M. Josuttis covers them exhaustively on pgs 650 and 281 respectively. C++11 adds a few new capabilities to std::bitset, of special interest to me is a hash function in unordered containers. Thanks for the heads up! I'm going to delete my brain-cramp comment. Already enough garbage out on the web. I don't want to add to it. – RocketRoy Nov 17 '14 at 21:08
1  
This uses at least a whole byte of storage for each bool. Maybe even 4 bytes for C89 setups that use int to implement bool – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:55
    
@MattMcNabb, you are correct. In C++ the size of the int type necessary to implement a boolean is not specified by the standard. I realized this answer was in error some time ago, but decided to leave it here as people are apparently finding it useful. For those wanting to use bits galinette's comment is most helpful as is my bit library here ... stackoverflow.com/a/16534995/1899861 – RocketRoy Feb 12 '15 at 7:23
    
@RocketRoy: Probably worth changing the sentence that claims this is an example of "bit operations", then. – Ben Voigt Feb 22 '15 at 2:20

Use one of the operators as defined here.

To set a bit, used int x = x | 0x?; where ? is the bit position in binary form.

share|improve this answer
2  
0x is the prefix for a literal in hexadecimal, not binary. – Ben Voigt Feb 22 '15 at 2:20

Expanding on the bitset answer:

#include <iostream>
#include <bitset>
#include <string>

using namespace std;
int main() {
  bitset<8> byte(std::string("10010011");

  // Set Bit
  byte.set(3); // 10010111

  // Clear Bit
  byte.reset(2); // 10010101

  // Toggle Bit
  byte.flip(7); // 00010101

  cout << byte << endl;

  return 0;
}
share|improve this answer

Here are some macros I use:

SET_FLAG(Status, Flag)            ((Status) |= (Flag))
CLEAR_FLAG(Status, Flag)          ((Status) &= ~(Flag))
INVALID_FLAGS(ulFlags, ulAllowed) ((ulFlags) & ~(ulAllowed))
TEST_FLAGS(t,ulMask, ulBit)       (((t)&(ulMask)) == (ulBit))
IS_FLAG_SET(t,ulMask)             TEST_FLAGS(t,ulMask,ulMask)
IS_FLAG_CLEAR(t,ulMask)           TEST_FLAGS(t,ulMask,0)
share|improve this answer

If you want to perform this all operation with c programming in linux kernel then i suggest to use standard apis of linux kernel.

See https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/kernel-api/ch02s03.html

set_bit — Atomically set a bit in memory
clear_bit — Clears a bit in memory
change_bit — Toggle a bit in memory
test_and_set_bit — Set a bit and return its old value
test_and_clear_bit — Clear a bit and return its old value
test_and_change_bit — Change a bit and return its old value
test_bit — Determine whether a bit is set 

Note: Here whole operation happens in a single step, So these all are guaranteed to be atomic even on SMP computers and are useful to keep coherence across processors.

share|improve this answer

Try one of these functions in C language to change n bit

char bitfield;

// start at 0th position

void chang_n_bit(int n, int value)
{
    bitfield = (bitfield | (1 << n)) & (~( (1 << n) ^ (value << n) ));
}

Or

void chang_n_bit(int n, int value)
{
    bitfield = (bitfield | (1 << n)) & ((value << n) | ((~0) ^ (1 << n)));
}

Or

void chang_n_bit(int n, int value)
{
    if(value)
        bitfield |= 1 << n;
    else
        bitfield &= ~0 ^ (1 << n);
}

char get_n_bit(int n)
{
    return (bitfield & (1 << n)) ? 1 : 0;
}
share|improve this answer
    
value << n may cause undefined behaviour – M.M Feb 6 '15 at 23:57
5  
Wow, that's a very long convoluted way to change a bit. – Ben Voigt Feb 22 '15 at 2:22

protected by Praveen Sep 12 '14 at 11:57

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.