422,751 Members | 2,100 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 422,751 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

literal binary?

P: n/a
Is there any way to represent a literal numerical value in binary?
My wish would be something like 0b0011 instead of the hex 0x0F.
( if this is even the same. )

Sometimes I find it's easier to use my finger's than my brain.

Nov 14 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Stephen Mayes wrote:
Is there any way to represent a literal numerical value in binary?
My wish would be something like 0b0011 instead of the hex 0x0F.
( if this is even the same. )
There is not. Hexadecimal or octal are your options.
Sometimes I find it's easier to use my finger's than my brain.

Oh.

HTH,
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://it-matters.blogspot.com (new post 12/5)
http://www.cafepress.com/goldsays
Nov 14 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Stephen Mayes" <de************@themayeshouse.us> wrote:
Is there any way to represent a literal numerical value in binary?
My wish would be something like 0b0011 instead of the hex 0x0F.
( if this is even the same. )

Sometimes I find it's easier to use my finger's than my brain.


Tom Torfs donated some macros awhile back. His Usenet post is quoted
below.

================================================== ===================
From: tomto...@village.uunet.be (Tom Torfs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch.embedded
Subject: Binary constant macros
Date: 26 Feb 2004 07:36:35 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <b9**************************@posting.google.com >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.103.254.11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1077809795 7936 127.0.0.1 (26 Feb 2004
15:36:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:36:35 +0000 (UTC)

Hello All,

I've been missing the lack of support for binary numeric literals in
C. To get around it I wrote the following handy macros, which allows
you to simply write something like:

whatever = B8(10101010);

and will translate as:

whatever = 85;

(compile-time constant)

Code below... hopefully it's useful to some of you as well.

greetings,
Tom

/* Binary constant generator macro
By Tom Torfs - donated to the public domain
*/

/* All macro's evaluate to compile-time constants */

/* *** helper macros *** /

/* turn a numeric literal into a hex constant
(avoids problems with leading zeroes)
8-bit constants max value 0x11111111, always fits in unsigned long
*/
#define HEX__(n) 0x##n##LU

/* 8-bit conversion function */
#define B8__(x) ((x&0x0000000FLU)?1:0) \
+((x&0x000000F0LU)?2:0) \
+((x&0x00000F00LU)?4:0) \
+((x&0x0000F000LU)?8:0) \
+((x&0x000F0000LU)?16:0) \
+((x&0x00F00000LU)?32:0) \
+((x&0x0F000000LU)?64:0) \
+((x&0xF0000000LU)?128:0)

/* *** user macros *** /

/* for upto 8-bit binary constants */
#define B8(d) ((unsigned char)B8__(HEX__(d)))

/* for upto 16-bit binary constants, MSB first */
#define B16(dmsb,dlsb) (((unsigned short)B8(dmsb)<<8) \
+ B8(dlsb))

/* for upto 32-bit binary constants, MSB first */
#define B32(dmsb,db2,db3,dlsb) (((unsigned long)B8(dmsb)<<24) \
+ ((unsigned long)B8(db2)<<16) \
+ ((unsigned long)B8(db3)<<8) \
+ B8(dlsb))

/* Sample usage:
B8(01010101) = 85
B16(10101010,01010101) = 43605
B32(10000000,11111111,10101010,01010101) = 2164238933
*/

greetings,
Tom
================================================== ===================

--
Dan Henry
Nov 14 '05 #3

P: n/a
Stephen Mayes <de************@themayeshouse.us> wrote:
Is there any way to represent a literal numerical value in binary?
My wish would be something like 0b0011 instead of the hex 0x0F.
( if this is even the same. )


Well, 0x0F would be "0b01111" if such a thing would exist;-)
But since, at least in my experience, when you deal with single
bits like that the bits typically have a certain meaning (e.g.
they are standing for a on/off flags etc., put together into
a single value) what about defining meaningful names for them
and then combining them with ORs? Like in e.g.

#define WRONLY ( 1 << 0 )
#define RDWR ( 1 << 1 )
#define CREAT ( 1 << 7 )

Thereby you could use ( CREAT | RDWR ) instead of 0x82 (or, even
harder to read, "0b10000010" as you to wish for) and would have
the additional ad- vantage of making the code easier to under-
stand. The program won't get slowed down by that because the
compiler should be able to replace that by the corresponding
constant.
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ Je***********@physik.fu-berlin.de
\__________________________ http://www.toerring.de
Nov 14 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.