![]() In practice, though, doing arithmetic on chars is rare.This is known as the ' Hamming Weight', 'popcount' or 'sideways addition'. : But the char type is an oddball, being a 16-bit unsigned integer type. : This mistake was illustrated in the book Java Puzzlers, chapter 3 âA Big Delight in Every Byteâ. I consider this workaround baroque, but I used this alternative a few times in my cryptography library because in those cases for large arrays, it was the least of all evils. ![]() : You have to implement intsToBytes() yourself there is no existing library function to do this for you. So there you have it, these are the reasons for why I believe Javaâs signed byte type is a mistake and should have been designed as an unsigned byte type instead. ![]() But in light of this, we can see that having byte as a signed type preserves the consistency of having signed integer types in Java â though not enough to justify its poor practical usage. compiler- and platform-dependent) bit widths, and that is why I hesitate to write code in C that involves absolutely precise and correct reasoning about value ranges, overflow, exact storage requirements, etc.įor the sake of completeness, I should mention that I have no problems with short, int, and long being signed types. Add to fact that the integer types have implementation-dependent (i.e. But this opens up a whole different can of worms, like implicit up-conversions, comparing signed and unsigned values, mixed-type arithmetic, unsigned dominating over signed, and more. Final thoughtsĪs an aside, the C programming language has signed and unsigned versions of every integer type that is supported by the language. But 8-bit audio sounds bad, so nobody prefers to use it anyway. In contrast, I can only think of one real application for signed bytes: uncompressed PCM audio samples. In practice, unsigned bytes are used as a native storage type for many things: 8-bit color channels in typical 24-bit RGB images, 8-bit extended ASCII characters (but thatâs obsolete thanks to UTF-8), opcodes for microprocessors. b is in the range, thus never equal to 255 One likely mistake is to test whether a byte value equals an unsigned int constant in a way that is always false (for example in file format parsing): byte b = (.) // e.g. When comparing a byte value to an int value, the byte is sign-extended to an int and then this value is compared to the other int. So you would either need to declare the constant normally and downcast it (verbose), or convert the constant to its signed interpretation and declare that in the code (hurts readability). Often some of these values are greater than 127, which exceed the signed range. When reading or writing file formats, or when implementing cryptographic algorithms, sometimes you need to declare a byte constant or a byte array constant. Int x = b << 24 | b << 16 | b << 8 | b Īs we can see, if the byte type were unsigned then the bit-packing code is significantly shorter, has fewer operations, and is clearer. When packing signed bytes into an int, each byte needs to be masked off because it is sign-extended to 32 bits (rather than zero-extended) due to the arithmetic promotion rule.Ĭonsider the example of packing an array b of 4 bytes to an int x in big-endian, and compare the amount of code when the byte type is signed (actual) versus unsigned (hypothetical): // Signed bytes, clear code In Java, it is not uncommon to manually convert an int (signed 32-bit integer) to and from an array of four bytes. ![]() Based on a range of applications, I find that the unsigned byte type has far more use cases and is easier to work with than the signed byte type. I regard this design to be a terrible mistake and that the reverse situation would make more sense. The Java programming language has a signed byte type but not an unsigned one. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |