Setting a bit
Use the bitwise OR operator (|
) to set a bit.
number |= 1UL << n;
That will set the n
th bit of number
. n
should be zero, if you want to set the 1
st bit and so on upto n-1
, if you want to set the n
th bit.
Use 1ULL
if number
is wider than unsigned long
; promotion of 1UL << n
doesn't happen until after evaluating 1UL << n
where it's undefined behaviour to shift by more than the width of a long
. The same applies to all the rest of the examples.
Clearing a bit
Use the bitwise AND operator (&
) to clear a bit.
number &= ~(1UL << n);
That will clear the n
th bit of number
. You must invert the bit string with the bitwise NOT operator (~
), then AND it.
Toggling a bit
The XOR operator (^
) can be used to toggle a bit.
number ^= 1UL << n;
That will toggle the n
th bit of number
.
Checking a bit
You didn't ask for this, but I might as well add it.
To check a bit, shift the number n to the right, then bitwise AND it:
bit = (number >> n) & 1U;
That will put the value of the n
th bit of number
into the variable bit
.
Changing the nth bit to x
Setting the n
th bit to either 1
or 0
can be achieved with the following on a 2's complement C++ implementation:
number ^= (-x ^ number) & (1UL << n);
Bit n
will be set if x
is 1
, and cleared if x
is 0
. If x
has some other value, you get garbage. x = !!x
will booleanize it to 0 or 1.
To make this independent of 2's complement negation behaviour (where -1
has all bits set, unlike on a 1's complement or sign/magnitude C++ implementation), use unsigned negation.
number ^= (-(unsigned long)x ^ number) & (1UL << n);
or
unsigned long newbit = !!x; // Also booleanize to force 0 or 1
number ^= (-newbit ^ number) & (1UL << n);
It's generally a good idea to use unsigned types for portable bit manipulation.
or
number = (number & ~(1UL << n)) | (x << n);
(number & ~(1UL << n))
will clear the n
th bit and (x << n)
will set the n
th bit to x
.
It's also generally a good idea to not to copy/paste code in general and so many people use preprocessor macros (like the community wiki answer further down) or some sort of encapsulation.
Best Answer
I am working on a large project that involves a lot of preprocessor macro functions to synthesize any code that cannot be replaced by templates. Believe me, I am familiar with all sorts of template tricks, but as long as there is no standardized, type safe metaprogramming language that can directly create code, we will have to stick with good old preprocessor and its cumbersome macros to solve some problems that would require to write ten times more code without. Some of the macros span many lines and they are very hard to read in preprocessed code. Therefore, I thought of a solution to that problem and what I came up with is the following:
Let's say we have a C/C++ macro that spans multiple lines, e.g. in a file named MyMacro.hpp
In every file where I defined such a macro, I include another file MultilineMacroDebugging.hpp that contains the following:
This defines an empty macro
__NL__
, which makes the__NL__
definitions disappear during preprocessing. The macro can then be used somewhere, e.g. in a file named MyImplementation.cpp.If I need to debug the
PRINT_VARIABLE
macro, I just uncomment the line that defines the macroHAVE_MULTILINE_DEBUGGING
in MyImplementation.cpp. The resulting code does of course not compile, as the__NL__
macro results undefined, which causes it to remain in the compiled code, but it can, however, be preprocessed.The crucial step is now to replace the
__NL__
string in the preprocessor output by newlines using your favorite text editor and, voila, you end up with a readable representation of the result of the replaced macro after preprocessing which resembles exactly what the compiler would see, except for the artificially introduced newlines.