I am not sure if I am calculating the parity bit correctly for the the check Parity bit function I wrote. The codeWord is 11 chars long with 4 parity bits and 7 data bits. Does the implementation look good?
void parityCheck(char* codeWord) {
int parity[4] = {0}, i = 0, diffParity[4] = {0}, twoPower = 0, bitSum = 0;
// Stores # of 1's for each parity bit in array.
parity[0] = (codeWord[2] - 48) + (codeWord[4] - 48) + (codeWord[6] - 48) + (codeWord[8] - 48) + (codeWord[10] - 48);
parity[1] = (codeWord[2] - 48) + (codeWord[5] - 48) + (codeWord[6] - 48) + (codeWord[9] - 48) + (codeWord[10] - 48);
parity[2] = (codeWord[4] - 48) + (codeWord[5] - 48) + (codeWord[6] - 48);
parity[3] = (codeWord[8] - 48) + (codeWord[9] - 48) + (codeWord[10] - 48);
// Determines if sum of bits is even or odd, then tests for difference from actual parity bit.
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
twoPower = (int)pow((double)2, i);
if (parity[i] % 2 == 0)
parity[i] = 0;
else
parity[i] = 1;
if ((codeWord[twoPower-1] - 48) != parity[i])
diffParity[i] = 1;
}
// Calculates the location of the error bit.
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
twoPower = (int)pow((double)2, i);
bitSum += diffParity[i]*twoPower;
}
// Inverts bit at location of error.
if (bitSum <= 11 && bitSum > 0) {
if ((codeWord[bitSum-1] - 48))
codeWord[bitSum-1] = '0';
else
codeWord[bitSum-1] = '1';
}
Does the implementation look good?
This very much depends on your measure for “good”. I can confirm that it does get the job done, so at least it is correct. Your code is very verbose, and thus hard to check for correctness. I'd do the following:
int parity_check(int codeWord) {
int parity = 0, codeWordBit, bitPos;
for (bitPos = 1; bitPos <= 11; ++bitPos) {
codeWordBit = ((codeWord >> (bitPos - 1)) & 1);
parity ^= bitPos*codeWordBit;
}
if (parity != 0) {
if (parity > 11)
return -1; // multi-bit error!
codeWord ^= 1 << (parity - 1);
}
return codeWord;
}
Instead of a sequence of digit characters, I treat your whole code word as a single integer, which is a lot more efficient.
Looking at the table at Wikipedia, I see that the columns of that table form binary representations of the sequence 1 … 11. Each code word bit affects exactly those parity bits mentioned in that column, so I take the code word bit (which is zero or one), multiply it by the bit pattern of that column to obtain either that pattern or zero, then XOR this with the current parity bit pattern. The effect of this is that a zero code word bit won't change anything, whereas a non-zero code word bit flips all associated parity bits.
Some care has to be taken because the bit pattern is one-based, whereas the bit position using the right shift trick is zero-based. So I have to subtract one, then shift right by that amount, and then extract the least significant digit in order to obtain the codeWordBit.
Using my implementation for reference, I was able to verify (by complete enumeration) that your code works the same.
この記事はインターネットから収集されたものであり、転載の際にはソースを示してください。
侵害の場合は、連絡してください[email protected]
コメントを追加