bit-set | It works fine , but will generally no longer be

by contain-rs Rust Version: Current License: Non-SPDX

X-Ray Key Features Code Snippets Community Discussions(3)Vulnerabilities Install Support

kandi X-RAY | bit-set Summary

bit-set is a Rust library. bit-set has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities and it has low support. However bit-set has a Non-SPDX License. You can download it from GitHub.

It works fine, but will generally no longer be improved.

Support

Quality

Security

License

Reuse

Support

bit-set has a low active ecosystem.

It has 24 star(s) with 11 fork(s). There are 6 watchers for this library.

It had no major release in the last 6 months.

There are 10 open issues and 3 have been closed. On average issues are closed in 121 days. There are 3 open pull requests and 0 closed requests.

It has a neutral sentiment in the developer community.

The latest version of bit-set is current.

Quality

bit-set has no bugs reported.

Security

bit-set has no vulnerabilities reported, and its dependent libraries have no vulnerabilities reported.

License

bit-set has a Non-SPDX License.

Non-SPDX licenses can be open source with a non SPDX compliant license, or non open source licenses, and you need to review them closely before use.

Reuse

bit-set releases are not available. You will need to build from source code and install.

Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

kandi's functional review helps you automatically verify the functionalities of the libraries and avoid rework.
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of bit-set

Get all kandi verified functions for this library.

bit-set Key Features

No Key Features are available at this moment for bit-set.

bit-set Examples and Code Snippets

No Code Snippets are available at this moment for bit-set.

Community Discussions

Trending Discussions on bit-set

Why am I Able to load x64 assembly into AnyCPU Prefer 32 bit executable?

Search for set/unset bit combination in value C++

Portable and Tight Bit Packing

QUESTION

Why am I Able to load x64 assembly into AnyCPU Prefer 32 bit executable?

Asked 2021-May-19 at 17:57

I am working on a tool that loads different assemblies using System.Reflection's method Assembly.Load Here is what i get On a 64bit OS, if application configured with :

x64 loads x64 & AnyCPU Assembly
x86 loads x86 & AnyCPU Assembly
AnyCPU loads x64 & AnyCPU Assembly

Now when it's configured with AnyCPU Prefer 32 bit on 64 bit OS,it will be running on 32bit process as it said here

In .NET 4.5 and Visual Studio 11 the cheese has been moved. The default for most .NET projects is again AnyCPU, but there is more than one meaning to AnyCPU now. There is an additional sub-type of AnyCPU, “Any CPU 32-bit preferred”, which is the new default (overall, there are now five options for the /platform C# compiler switch: x86, Itanium, x64, anycpu, and anycpu32bitpreferred). When using the "Prefer 32-Bit" flavor of AnyCPU, the semantics are as follows:

If the process runs on a 32-bit Windows system, it runs as a 32-bit process. IL is compiled to x86 machine code.

If the process runs on a 64-bit Windows system, it runs as a 32-bit process. IL is compiled to x86 machine code.

If the process runs on an ARM Windows system, it runs as a 32-bit process. IL is compiled to ARM machine code.

The difference, then, between “Any CPU 32-bit preferred” and “x86” is only this: a .NET application compiled to x86 will fail to run on an ARM Windows system, but an “Any CPU 32-bit preferred” application will run successfully.

My Question is : Why it loads x64 assembly without any problem? isn't that a strange behaviour?

I have seen this question ODP.NET x64 ANYCPU and Prefer 32-bit setting that support this proposition

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-May-19 at 16:54

.NET assemblies (exe and dll) don't contain x86/x64 assembly. They contain IL (intermediate language), which is architecture-independent. At runtime, the JIT turns the IL into x86/x64 machine code, as appropriate.

The "Any CPU" and "Prefer 32-bit" settings, etc, only change some bits in the header of the assembly, which tells the JIT what to emit at runtime. Only the bits in the header of the .exe matter: the exe dictates what the JIT will emit, and the if the JIT is emitting e.g. x86 for the exe, it will do the same for all other assemblies which are loaded into that process.

Now, it might be a bad idea to load a dll which has the "x86" flag set into a process which the JIT is emitting x64 for: presumably that dll has a reason for specifying x86, and that's probably because it's invoking some native code which is compiled for x86. If you force it to run inside an x64 process, then it won't be able to invoke that x86 native code any more.

(Note that the landscape has moved since that quote you found: .NET Core now ignores "Prefer 32-bit", and AnyCPU defaults to x64).

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67607518

QUESTION

Search for set/unset bit combination in value C++

Asked 2021-Mar-16 at 10:43

It's my first time working with C++ and I'm tryin to identify if the bits of a given int fall into a specific category:

For each int passed to the function, we implement the rule that every 2 bits represent a singular value within the message, and if that message's value is 2 (10 binary) then we need to return a boolean with false. Examples: (In the colum binary representation I separate each 2 bits so its more visible)

Given value Binary representation condition met Returns 0 00 00 00 00 None true (no condition met) 128 10 00 00 00 1st false 32 (00) 10 00 00 2nd false 8 (00 00) 10 00 3rd false 2 (00 00 00) 10 4th false 217 11 01 10 01 3rd false 153 10 01 10 01 1st & 3rd false

I've found about this and this and tried making a simple function, but it's not working as intended.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-Mar-16 at 08:21

unsigned int condition=((value&0xaaaaaaaa)>>1)&((~value)&0x55555555);

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66650918

QUESTION

Portable and Tight Bit Packing

Asked 2020-Oct-20 at 19:49

Suppose I have three unsigned ints, {a, b, c, d}, which I want to pack with non-standard lengths, {9,5,7,11} respectively. I wish to make a network packet (unsigned char pkt[4]) that I can pack these values into and unpack them reliably on another machine using the same header file regardless of endianness.

Everything I have read about using packed structs suggests that the bit-ordering will not be predictable so that is out of the question. So that leaves me with bit-set and bit-clear operations, but I'm not confident in how to ensure that endianness will not cause me problems. Is the following sufficient, or shall I run into problems with the endianness of a and d separately?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-Oct-20 at 05:41

for packing and packing i suggest use struct like this

remember size of struct is different in other machines like 8 bit system vs 32 bit system compile same struct with different sizes we call it padding in struct so you can use pack to be sure struct size is same in transmitter and receiver

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64438804

Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

Vulnerabilities

No vulnerabilities reported

Install bit-set

You can download it from GitHub.
Rust is installed and managed by the rustup tool. Rust has a 6-week rapid release process and supports a great number of platforms, so there are many builds of Rust available at any time. Please refer rust-lang.org for more information.

Support

For any new features, suggestions and bugs create an issue on GitHub. If you have any questions check and ask questions on community page Stack Overflow .

Find more information at: