- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
typedef struct { bool a: 1; bool b: 1; bool c: 1; bool d: 1; bool e: 1; bool f: 1; bool g: 1; bool h: 1; } __attribute__((__packed__)) not_if_you_have_enough_booleans_t;You beat me to it!
Or just
std::bitset<8>for C++. Bit fields are neat though, it can store weird stuff like a 3 bit integer, packed next to booleansThat’s only for C++, as far as I can tell that struct is valid C
This was gonna be my response to OP so I’ll offer an alternative approach instead:
typedef enum flags_e : unsigned char { F_1 = (1 << 0), F_2 = (1 << 1), F_3 = (1 << 2), F_4 = (1 << 3), F_5 = (1 << 4), F_6 = (1 << 5), F_7 = (1 << 6), F_8 = (1 << 7), } Flags; int main(void) { Flags f = F_1 | F_3 | F_5; if (f & F_1 && f & F_3) { // do F_1 and F_3 stuff } }Why not
if (f & (F_1 | F_3)) {? I use this all the time in embedded code.edit: never mind; you’re checking for both flags. I’d probably use
(f & (F_1 | F_3)) == (F_1 | F_3)but that’s not much different than what you wrote.
I set all 8 bits to 1 because I want it to be really true.
You jest, but on some older computers, all ones was the official truth value. Other values may also have been true in certain contexts, but that was the guaranteed one.
01111111 = true
11111111 = negative true = false
00001111 = maybe
10101010 = I don’t know
100001111 = maybe not
00000001 00000000 00001111 10101010
0011 1111 = could you repeat the question
Schrödingers Boolean
Is this quantum computing? 😜
What if it’s an unsigned boolean?
Cthulhu shows up.
Super true.
Common misconception… Unsigned booleans (ubool) are always 16-bits.
Could also store our bools as floats.
00111111100000000000000000000000is true and10111111100000000000000000000000is negative true.Has the fun twist that true & false is true and true | false is false .
Why do alternative facts always gotta show up uninvited to the party? 🥳
So all this time true was actually false and false was actually true ?
Depends on if you are on a big endian or little endian architecture.
Come on man, I’m not gonna talk about my endian publicly
negative true = negative non-zero = non-zero = true.
TIL, 255 is the new 1.
Aka -1 >> 1 : TRUE
But only if you really mean it. If not, it’s a syntax error and the compiler will know.
I was programming in assembly for ARM (some cortex chip) and I kid you not the C program we were integrating with required 255, with just 1 it read it as false
Depending on the language
And compiler. And hardware architecture. And optimization flags.
As usual, it’s some developer that knows little enough to think the walls they see around enclose the entire world.
Fucking lol at the downvoters haha that second sentence must have rubbed them the wrong way for being too accurate.
deleted by creator
I don’t think so. Apart from dynamically typed languages which need to store the type with the value, it’s always 1 byte, and that doesn’t depend on architecture (excluding ancient or exotic architectures) or optimisation flags.
Which language/architecture/flags would not store a bool in 1 byte?
things that store it as word size for alignment purposes (most common afaik), things that pack multiple books into one byte (normally only things like bool sequences/structs), etc
things that store it as word size for alignment purposes
Nope. bools only need to be naturally aligned, so 1 byte.
If you do
struct SomeBools { bool a; bool b; bool c; bool d; };its 4 bytes.
sure, but if you have a single bool in a stack frame it’s probably going to be more than a byte. on the heap definitely more than a byte
but if you have a single bool in a stack frame it’s probably going to be more than a byte.
Nope. - if you can’t read RISC-V assembly, look at these lines
sb a5,-17(s0) ... sb a5,-18(s0) ... sb a5,-19(s0) ...That is it storing the bools in single bytes. Also I only used RISC-V because I’m way more familiar with it than x86, but it will do the same thing.
on the heap definitely more than a byte
Nope, you can happily
malloc(1)and store a bool in it, ormalloc(4)and store 4 bools in it. A bool is 1 byte. Consider this a TIL moment.c++ guarantees that calls to malloc are aligned https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/c/malloc .
you can call
malloc(1)ofc, but callingmalloc_usable_size(malloc(1))is giving me 24, so it at least allocated 24 bytes for my 1, plus any tracking overheadyeah, as I said, in a stack frame. not surprised a compiler packed them into single bytes in the same frame (but I wouldn’t be that surprised the other way either), but the system v abi guarantees at least 4 byte alignment of a stack frame on entering a fn, so if you stored a single bool it’ll get 3+ extra bytes added on the next fn call.
computers align things. you normally don’t have to think about it. Consider this a TIL moment.
Apart from dynamically typed languages which need to store the type with the value
You know that depending on what your code does, the same C that people are talking upthread doesn’t even need to allocate memory to store a variable, right?
How does that work?
I think he’s talking about if a variable only exists in registers. In which case it is the size of a register. But that’s true of everything that gets put in registers. You wouldn’t say
uint16_tis word-sized because at some point it gets put into a word-sized register. That’s dumb.
True.
Well storing that would only take half a bit.
boolean bloat
I first thought you wrote boolean float, not sure if that’s even worse.
boolean root beer float
deleted by creator
std::vector<bool>fits eight booleans into one byte.std::vector<std::vector<bool>> is how I stored the representation of a play field for a Tetris game I made once.
auto v = std::vector<bool>(8); bool* vPtr = v.data; vPtr[2] = true; // KABOOM !!!I’ve spent days tracking this bug… That’s how I learned about bool specialisation of std::vector.
Joke’s on you, I always use 64 bit wide unsigned integers to store a 1 and compare to check for value.
So does the cpu
Then you need to ask yourself: Performance or memory efficiency? Is it worth the extra cycles and instructions to put 8 bools in one byte and & 0x bitmask the relevant one?
And you may ask yourself: where is my beautiful house? Where is my beautiful wife?
- Soon to be
- That’s me
Talking heads - once in a lifetime
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
A lot of times using less memory is actually better for performance because the main bottleneck is memory bandwidth or latency.
Yep, and anding with a bit ask is incredibly fast to process, so it’s not a big issue for performance.
It’s not just less memory though - it might also introduce spurious data dependencies, e.g. to store a bit you now need to also read the old value of the byte that it’s in.
It might also introduce spurious data dependencies
Those need to be in the in smallest cache or a register anyway. If they are in registers, a modern, instruction reordering CPU will deal with that fine.
to store a bit you now need to also read the old value of the byte that it’s in.
Many architectures read the cache line on write-miss.
The only cases I can see, where byte sized bools seems better, are either using so few that all fit in one chache line anyways (in which case the performance will be great either way) or if you are repeatedly accessing a bitvector from multiple threads, in which case you should make sure that’s actually what you want to be doing.
Could definitely be worse for latency in particular cases, but if we imagine a write heavy workload it still might win. Writing a byte/word basically has to do the same thing: read, modify write of cache lines, it just doesn’t confuse the dependency tracking quite as much. So rather than stalling on a read, I think that would end up stalling on store buffers. Writing to bits usually means less memory, and thus less memory to read in that read-modify-write part, so it might still be faster.
Sounds like a compiler problem to me. :p
I have a solution with a bit fields. Now your bool is 1 byte :
struct Flags { bool flag0 : 1; bool flag1 : 1; bool flag2 : 1; bool flag3 : 1; bool flag4 : 1; bool flag5 : 1; bool flag6 : 1; bool flag7 : 1; };Or for example:
struct Flags { bool flag0 : 1; bool flag1 : 1: int x_cord : 3; int y_cord : 3; };I watched a YouTube video where a dev was optimizing unity code to match the size of data that is sent to the cpu using structs just like this.
string boolEnable = "True";Violence
Maybe json is named after Jason Voorhees
Weird how I usually learn more from the humor communities than the serious ones… 😎
We need to be able to express 0 and 1 as integers so that functionality is just being overloaded to express another concept.
Wait until the person who made this meme finds out about how many bits are being wasted on modern CPU architectures. 7 is the minimum possible wasted bits but it would be 31 on every modern computer (even 64b machines since they default to 32b ints).
just like electronic components, they sell the gates by the chip with multiple gates in them because it’s cheaper
That’s a good analogy.
This reminds me that I actually once made a class to store bools packed in uint8 array to save bytes.
Had forgotten that. I think i have to update the list of top 10 dumbest things i ever did.
Ah, the creator od std::vector<bool>?
Are you telling me that no compiler optimizes this? Why?
Well there are containers that store booleans in single bits (e.g.
std::vector<bool>- which was famously a big mistake).But in the general case you don’t want that because it would be slower.
Why is this a big mistake? I’m not a c++ person
The mistake was that they created a type that behaves like an array in every case except for
bool, for which they created a special magical version that behaves just subtly different enough that it can break things in confusing ways.Could you provide an example?
The biggest problem is that each element doesn’t have a unique memory address; iterators aren’t just pointers.
It would be slower to read the value if you had to also do bitwise operations to get the value.
But you can also define your own bitfield types to store booleans packed together if you really need to. I would much rather that than have the compiler do it automatically for me.
CPUs don’t read one bit a a time.
Consider what the disassembly would look like. There’s no fast way to do it.
It’s also unnecessary since 8 bytes is a negligible amount in most cases. Serialization is the only real scenario where it matters. (Edit: and embedded)
In embedded, if you are to the point that you need to optimize the bools to reduce the footprint, you fucked up sizing your mcu.
They do, that’s the optimisation.
