Re: [PATCH 4/8] add functions for memory-efficient bitmaps

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2014, 15:51 UTC
Message-ID: <20140626155119.GA10402@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <53AB9039.8040809@web.de>

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:15:05AM +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> > + */
> > +static inline int bitset_sizeof(int num_bits)
> > +{
> > +	return (num_bits + CHAR_BIT - 1) / CHAR_BIT;
> > +}
> Just a general question about the usage of "int" here (and at other places):
> Is there a special reason for new code to allow num_bits to be negative ?

No. I usually choose "int" when the word size is not likely to matter (i.e., we do not expect it to overflow a 32-bit integer, nor to have so many that I need to be careful not to waste space).

Probably "unsigned int" would be a more descriptive choice.

It may also help the compiler optimize better. Assuming CHAR_BIT is 8 (i.e., most everywhere), we get:

  (num_bits + 7) / 8

Presumably the compiler implements the division with a right-shift. Marking num_bits as unsigned should let us do just a logical shift, without worrying about the sign. And indeed, here are the signed and unsigned versions produced by "gcc -S -O2" (for an equivalent non-inlined function):

  [signed]
        leal    14(%rdi), %edx
        movl    %edi, %eax
        addl    $7, %eax
        cmovs   %edx, %eax
        sarl    $3, %eax
        ret

  [unsigned]
        leal    7(%rdi), %eax
        shrl    $3, %eax
        ret

Much simpler, though see below for practical considerations.

> To my knowledge all the size_t definitions these days are positive,
> because a size can not be negative.

size_t is perhaps a reasonable choice for the return value, given the name "sizeof". But if you really care about using the whole range of bits there, you need a data type for num_bits that is CHAR_BIT times larger.

> Should we use
> "unsigned" here ?
> or "unsigned int" ?

Yes, I think so. Both are the same to the compiler. I have a vague recollection that we prefer one over the other, but grepping seems to find many examples of each in our code.

I'm squashing in the patch below. I couldn't measure any speed improvement. I'm guessing because the functions are all inlined, which means we likely get away with calculating bitset_sizeof once outside of our loop. I think the result is still more obvious to read, though.

-Peff

---

diff --git a/bitset.h b/bitset.h
index 5fbc956..268545b 100644
--- a/bitset.h
+++ b/bitset.h
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
  *
  *   bits = xcalloc(1, bitset_sizeof(nr));
  */
-static inline int bitset_sizeof(int num_bits)
+static inline unsigned bitset_sizeof(unsigned num_bits)
 {
 	return (num_bits + CHAR_BIT - 1) / CHAR_BIT;
 }
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static inline int bitset_sizeof(int num_bits)
  * Set the bit at position "n". "n" is counted from zero, and must be
  * smaller than the num_bits given to bitset_sizeof when allocating the bitset.
  */
-static inline void bitset_set(unsigned char *bits, int n)
+static inline void bitset_set(unsigned char *bits, unsigned n)
 {
 	bits[n / CHAR_BIT] |= 1 << (n % CHAR_BIT);
 }
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static inline void bitset_set(unsigned char *bits, int n)
 /*
  * Return the bit at position "n" (see bitset_set for a description of "n").
  */
-static inline int bitset_get(unsigned char *bits, int n)
+static inline unsigned bitset_get(unsigned char *bits, unsigned n)
 {
 	return !!(bits[n / CHAR_BIT] & (1 << (n % CHAR_BIT)));
 }
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ static inline int bitset_get(unsigned char *bits, int n)
  * "max" (we assume any bits beyond "max" up to the next CHAR_BIT boundary are
  * zeroed padding).
  */
-static inline int bitset_equal(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b, int max)
+static inline int bitset_equal(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b,
+			       unsigned max)
 {
-	int i;
+	unsigned i;
 	for (i = bitset_sizeof(max); i > 0; i--)
 		if (*a++ != *b++)
 			return 0;
@@ -89,9 +90,10 @@ static inline int bitset_equal(unsigned char *a, unsigned char *b, int max)
  *
  * See bitset_equal for the definition of "max".
  */
-static inline void bitset_or(unsigned char *dst, const unsigned char *src, int max)
+static inline void bitset_or(unsigned char *dst, const unsigned char *src,
+			     unsigned max)
 {
-	int i;
+	unsigned i;
 	for (i = bitset_sizeof(max); i > 0; i--)
 		*dst++ |= *src++;
 }
@@ -101,9 +103,9 @@ static inline void bitset_or(unsigned char *dst, const unsigned char *src, int m
  *
  * See bitset_equal for the definition of "max".
  */
-static inline int bitset_empty(const unsigned char *bits, int max)
+static inline int bitset_empty(const unsigned char *bits, unsigned max)
 {
-	int i;
+	unsigned i;
 	for (i = bitset_sizeof(max); i > 0; i--, bits++)
 		if (*bits)
 			return 0;