How to create a 32-bit integer from eight (8) 4-bit integers?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







14















Let's say I have a max 32-bit integer -






const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





So far so good. But now let's say I want to make a 32-bit number using eight (8) 4-bit numbers. The idea is simple: shift (<<) each 4-bit sequence into position and add (+) them together -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





I'm getting -1 but the expected result is 32-bits of all ones, or 11111111111111111111111111111111.



Worse, if I start with the expected outcome and work my way backwards, I get the expected result -






const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





I tried debugging my make function to ensure there wasn't an obvious problem -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





The formula looks like it checks out. I thought maybe it was something to do with + and switched to bitwise or (|) which should effectively do the same thing here -






const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





However, I get the same bug with my make function when attempting to combine all eight (8) numbers -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





What gives?



The goal is to convert eight (8) 4-bit integers into a single 32-bit integer using JavaScript - this is just my attempt. I'm curious where my function is breaking, but I'm open to alternative solutions.



I'd like to avoid converting each 4-bit integer to a binary string, mashing the binary strings together, then parsing the binary string into a single int. A numeric solution is preferred.










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:10











  • Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

    – harold
    Mar 28 at 11:00


















14















Let's say I have a max 32-bit integer -






const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





So far so good. But now let's say I want to make a 32-bit number using eight (8) 4-bit numbers. The idea is simple: shift (<<) each 4-bit sequence into position and add (+) them together -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





I'm getting -1 but the expected result is 32-bits of all ones, or 11111111111111111111111111111111.



Worse, if I start with the expected outcome and work my way backwards, I get the expected result -






const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





I tried debugging my make function to ensure there wasn't an obvious problem -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





The formula looks like it checks out. I thought maybe it was something to do with + and switched to bitwise or (|) which should effectively do the same thing here -






const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





However, I get the same bug with my make function when attempting to combine all eight (8) numbers -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





What gives?



The goal is to convert eight (8) 4-bit integers into a single 32-bit integer using JavaScript - this is just my attempt. I'm curious where my function is breaking, but I'm open to alternative solutions.



I'd like to avoid converting each 4-bit integer to a binary string, mashing the binary strings together, then parsing the binary string into a single int. A numeric solution is preferred.










share|improve this question


















  • 1





    It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:10











  • Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

    – harold
    Mar 28 at 11:00














14












14








14








Let's say I have a max 32-bit integer -






const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





So far so good. But now let's say I want to make a 32-bit number using eight (8) 4-bit numbers. The idea is simple: shift (<<) each 4-bit sequence into position and add (+) them together -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





I'm getting -1 but the expected result is 32-bits of all ones, or 11111111111111111111111111111111.



Worse, if I start with the expected outcome and work my way backwards, I get the expected result -






const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





I tried debugging my make function to ensure there wasn't an obvious problem -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





The formula looks like it checks out. I thought maybe it was something to do with + and switched to bitwise or (|) which should effectively do the same thing here -






const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





However, I get the same bug with my make function when attempting to combine all eight (8) numbers -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





What gives?



The goal is to convert eight (8) 4-bit integers into a single 32-bit integer using JavaScript - this is just my attempt. I'm curious where my function is breaking, but I'm open to alternative solutions.



I'd like to avoid converting each 4-bit integer to a binary string, mashing the binary strings together, then parsing the binary string into a single int. A numeric solution is preferred.










share|improve this question














Let's say I have a max 32-bit integer -






const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





So far so good. But now let's say I want to make a 32-bit number using eight (8) 4-bit numbers. The idea is simple: shift (<<) each 4-bit sequence into position and add (+) them together -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





I'm getting -1 but the expected result is 32-bits of all ones, or 11111111111111111111111111111111.



Worse, if I start with the expected outcome and work my way backwards, I get the expected result -






const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





I tried debugging my make function to ensure there wasn't an obvious problem -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





The formula looks like it checks out. I thought maybe it was something to do with + and switched to bitwise or (|) which should effectively do the same thing here -






const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





However, I get the same bug with my make function when attempting to combine all eight (8) numbers -






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





What gives?



The goal is to convert eight (8) 4-bit integers into a single 32-bit integer using JavaScript - this is just my attempt. I'm curious where my function is breaking, but I'm open to alternative solutions.



I'd like to avoid converting each 4-bit integer to a binary string, mashing the binary strings together, then parsing the binary string into a single int. A numeric solution is preferred.






const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





const a =
((2 ** 32) - 1)

const b =
parseInt("11111111111111111111111111111111", 2) // 32 bits, each is a one!

console.log(a === b) // true

console.log(a.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)

console.log(b.toString(2))
// 11111111111111111111111111111111 (32 ones)





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// 4 bits
print(make([ 15 ])) // 1111

// 8 bits
print(make([ 15, 15 ])) // 11111111

// 12 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111

// 16 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111

// 20 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 11111111111111111111

// 24 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 111111111111111111111111

// 28 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111

// almost there ... now 32 bits
print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





const c =
`11111111111111111111111111111111`

const d =
parseInt(c, 2)

console.log(d) // 4294967295

console.log(d.toString(2) === c) // true





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? `0`
: `(${bit} << ${e}) + ` + make (more, e + 4)

console.log(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ]))
// (15 << 0) + (15 << 4) + (15 << 8) + (15 << 12) + (15 << 16) + (15 << 20) + (15 << 24) + (15 << 28) + 0





const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





const a =
parseInt("1111",2)

const b =
(a << 0) | (a << 4)

console.log(b.toString(2)) // 11111111

const c =
b | (a << 8)

console.log(c.toString(2)) // 111111111111





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0) =>
bit === undefined
? 0
: (bit << e) | make (more, e + 4)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))


print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // 1111111111111111111111111111 (28 bits)

print(make([ 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15 ])) // -1 :(






javascript twos-complement base-conversion






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 28 at 5:56









user633183user633183

72.1k21143184




72.1k21143184








  • 1





    It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:10











  • Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

    – harold
    Mar 28 at 11:00














  • 1





    It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:10











  • Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

    – harold
    Mar 28 at 11:00








1




1





It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:10





It looks like bitwise operators says "The numbers -2147483648 and 2147483647 are the minimum and the maximum integers representable through a 32-bit signed number." Indeed (15 << 28) lies beyond this range, however JavaScript's MAX_SAFE_INTEGER supports up to 53 bits. Is there a safe and reliable way to use bitwise operators on larger-than-32-bit numbers?

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:10













Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

– harold
Mar 28 at 11:00





Is the signedness really unacceptable? They're the same bits after all, just slightly a different interpretation

– harold
Mar 28 at 11:00












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















13














The bitwise operators will result in a signed 32 bit number, meaning that if the bit at position 31 (counting from the least significant bit at the right, which is bit 0) is 1, the number will be negative.



To avoid this from happening, use other operators than << or |, which both result in a signed 32-bit number. For instance:



(bit * 2**e) + make (more, e + 4)


Forcing unsigned 32-bit



Bit shifting operators are designed to force the result into the signed 32-bit range, at least that is claimed on mdn (at the time of writing):




The operands of all bitwise operators are converted to signed 32-bit integers




This is in fact not entirely true. The >>> operator is an exception to this. EcmaScript 2015, section 12.5.8.1 states that the operands are mapped to unsigned 32 bit before shifting in the 0 bits. So even if you would shift zero bits, you'd see that effect.



You would only have to apply it once to the final value, like for instance in your print function:



console.log((n>>>0).toString(2))


BigInt solution



If you need even more than 32 bits, and your JavaScript engine supports BigInt like some already do, then use BigInts for the operands involved in the bitwise operators -- these will then not use the 32-bit signed number wrapping (notice the n suffixes):






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





NB: If you get an error running the above, try again with Chrome...






share|improve this answer


























  • bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:21













  • No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:23











  • I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:25













  • It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

    – trincot
    Mar 28 at 8:00











  • that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 17:12












Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55390991%2fhow-to-create-a-32-bit-integer-from-eight-8-4-bit-integers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13














The bitwise operators will result in a signed 32 bit number, meaning that if the bit at position 31 (counting from the least significant bit at the right, which is bit 0) is 1, the number will be negative.



To avoid this from happening, use other operators than << or |, which both result in a signed 32-bit number. For instance:



(bit * 2**e) + make (more, e + 4)


Forcing unsigned 32-bit



Bit shifting operators are designed to force the result into the signed 32-bit range, at least that is claimed on mdn (at the time of writing):




The operands of all bitwise operators are converted to signed 32-bit integers




This is in fact not entirely true. The >>> operator is an exception to this. EcmaScript 2015, section 12.5.8.1 states that the operands are mapped to unsigned 32 bit before shifting in the 0 bits. So even if you would shift zero bits, you'd see that effect.



You would only have to apply it once to the final value, like for instance in your print function:



console.log((n>>>0).toString(2))


BigInt solution



If you need even more than 32 bits, and your JavaScript engine supports BigInt like some already do, then use BigInts for the operands involved in the bitwise operators -- these will then not use the 32-bit signed number wrapping (notice the n suffixes):






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





NB: If you get an error running the above, try again with Chrome...






share|improve this answer


























  • bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:21













  • No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:23











  • I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:25













  • It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

    – trincot
    Mar 28 at 8:00











  • that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 17:12
















13














The bitwise operators will result in a signed 32 bit number, meaning that if the bit at position 31 (counting from the least significant bit at the right, which is bit 0) is 1, the number will be negative.



To avoid this from happening, use other operators than << or |, which both result in a signed 32-bit number. For instance:



(bit * 2**e) + make (more, e + 4)


Forcing unsigned 32-bit



Bit shifting operators are designed to force the result into the signed 32-bit range, at least that is claimed on mdn (at the time of writing):




The operands of all bitwise operators are converted to signed 32-bit integers




This is in fact not entirely true. The >>> operator is an exception to this. EcmaScript 2015, section 12.5.8.1 states that the operands are mapped to unsigned 32 bit before shifting in the 0 bits. So even if you would shift zero bits, you'd see that effect.



You would only have to apply it once to the final value, like for instance in your print function:



console.log((n>>>0).toString(2))


BigInt solution



If you need even more than 32 bits, and your JavaScript engine supports BigInt like some already do, then use BigInts for the operands involved in the bitwise operators -- these will then not use the 32-bit signed number wrapping (notice the n suffixes):






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





NB: If you get an error running the above, try again with Chrome...






share|improve this answer


























  • bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:21













  • No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:23











  • I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:25













  • It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

    – trincot
    Mar 28 at 8:00











  • that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 17:12














13












13








13







The bitwise operators will result in a signed 32 bit number, meaning that if the bit at position 31 (counting from the least significant bit at the right, which is bit 0) is 1, the number will be negative.



To avoid this from happening, use other operators than << or |, which both result in a signed 32-bit number. For instance:



(bit * 2**e) + make (more, e + 4)


Forcing unsigned 32-bit



Bit shifting operators are designed to force the result into the signed 32-bit range, at least that is claimed on mdn (at the time of writing):




The operands of all bitwise operators are converted to signed 32-bit integers




This is in fact not entirely true. The >>> operator is an exception to this. EcmaScript 2015, section 12.5.8.1 states that the operands are mapped to unsigned 32 bit before shifting in the 0 bits. So even if you would shift zero bits, you'd see that effect.



You would only have to apply it once to the final value, like for instance in your print function:



console.log((n>>>0).toString(2))


BigInt solution



If you need even more than 32 bits, and your JavaScript engine supports BigInt like some already do, then use BigInts for the operands involved in the bitwise operators -- these will then not use the 32-bit signed number wrapping (notice the n suffixes):






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





NB: If you get an error running the above, try again with Chrome...






share|improve this answer















The bitwise operators will result in a signed 32 bit number, meaning that if the bit at position 31 (counting from the least significant bit at the right, which is bit 0) is 1, the number will be negative.



To avoid this from happening, use other operators than << or |, which both result in a signed 32-bit number. For instance:



(bit * 2**e) + make (more, e + 4)


Forcing unsigned 32-bit



Bit shifting operators are designed to force the result into the signed 32-bit range, at least that is claimed on mdn (at the time of writing):




The operands of all bitwise operators are converted to signed 32-bit integers




This is in fact not entirely true. The >>> operator is an exception to this. EcmaScript 2015, section 12.5.8.1 states that the operands are mapped to unsigned 32 bit before shifting in the 0 bits. So even if you would shift zero bits, you'd see that effect.



You would only have to apply it once to the final value, like for instance in your print function:



console.log((n>>>0).toString(2))


BigInt solution



If you need even more than 32 bits, and your JavaScript engine supports BigInt like some already do, then use BigInts for the operands involved in the bitwise operators -- these will then not use the 32-bit signed number wrapping (notice the n suffixes):






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





NB: If you get an error running the above, try again with Chrome...






const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}





const make = ([ bit, ...more ], e = 0n) =>
bit === undefined
? 0n
: (bit << e) + make (more, e + 4n)

const print = n =>
console.log(n.toString(2))

// Test
for (let i=1; i<20; i++) {
print(make(Array(i).fill(15n))) // longer and longer array...
}






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 28 at 18:36

























answered Mar 28 at 6:18









trincottrincot

131k1691125




131k1691125













  • bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:21













  • No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:23











  • I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:25













  • It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

    – trincot
    Mar 28 at 8:00











  • that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 17:12



















  • bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:21













  • No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:23











  • I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 6:25













  • It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

    – trincot
    Mar 28 at 8:00











  • that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

    – user633183
    Mar 28 at 17:12

















bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:21







bit is a bit of a misnomer here. Can you actually multiply the 4-bits directly by the exponent there? Typically the base conversion is done using bit0 * 2**0 + bit1 * 2**1 + bit2 * 2**2 + bit3 * 2**3, etc. I'm thinking I would have to break the 4-bit segments into individual bits and multiply each one by the increasing exponents.

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:21















No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:23





No point in guessing, I tried it an it works just fine. Thanks @trincot. I learned a useful shortcut in base conversion today!

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:23













I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:25







I never felt a "shortcoming" in JavaScript's bitwise operators before today. Is it even reasonable to expect a new set of bitwise operators that works in the 64-bit space?

– user633183
Mar 28 at 6:25















It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

– trincot
Mar 28 at 8:00





It is not really a shortcoming, but intended. I have added a new section to my answer which may interest you.

– trincot
Mar 28 at 8:00













that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

– user633183
Mar 28 at 17:12





that's great. I didn't know BigInt support was already here. The new section makes perfect sense.

– user633183
Mar 28 at 17:12




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55390991%2fhow-to-create-a-32-bit-integer-from-eight-8-4-bit-integers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Alcedinidae

Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?