Develop Reference

right shift >> turns value into zero javascript

Trying some bit manipulation in javascript.
Consider the following:
const n = 4393751543811;
console.log(n.toString(2)) // '111111111100000000000000000000000000000011'
console.log(n & 0b11) // last two bits equal 3
const m = n >> 2; // right shift 2
// The unexpected.
console.log(m.toString(2)) // '0'
The result is 0? The expected output I am looking for after the right shift is:
111111111100000000000000000000000000000011 // pre
001111111111000000000000000000000000000000 // post >>
How is this accomplished?

Javascript bitwise operators on numbers work "as if" on 32bit integers.
>> (sign-propagating right-shift for numbers) will first convert to a 32-bit integer. If you read linked spec, note specifically
Let int32bit be int modulo 232.
In other words, all bits above 32 will simply be ignored. For your number, this results in the following:
111111111100000000000000000000000000000011
┗removed━┛┗━━━━━━━━━━━━━━32bit━━━━━━━━━━━━━┛
If you want, you can use BigInt:
const n = 4393751543811n; // note the n-suffix
console.log(n.toString(2))
console.log(n & 0b11n) // for BigInt, all operands must be BigInt
const m = n >> 2n;
// The expected.
console.log(m.toString(2))
The spec for >> on BigInt uses BigInt::leftShift(x, -y), where it in turn states:
Semantics here should be equivalent to a bitwise shift, treating the BigInt as an infinite length string of binary two's complement digits.

In JavaScript, can bit shifting be used to isolate 1 or more bits in a byte?

In JavaScript code where the 8 bits of a byte represent 8 Boolean "decisions" (aka: flags), there is a need to isolate each given bit for conversion to a Boolean variable. Consider my solution using String parsing:
var bitParser = function (_nTestByte, _nBitOrdinal) {
var bits = ("00000000" + _nTestByte.toString(2)).slice(-8); // convert to binary and zero-pad
return bits[_nBitOrdinal] === "1";
};
console.log(bitParser(0b10100101, 2)); // ECMAScript 6+ prefix, returns true
It works, and shows the desired result. However I have a hypothesis stating that a bit shifting technique would be a faster option than String manipulation. I tend to believe that but desire to prove it.
The problem is, I have yet to produce such a function that works correctly, let alone something I can test. I have created the following logic plan that I believe is accurate:
/*
LOGIC PLAN
----------
0) Remember: all bitwise operators return 32 bits even though we are using 8
1) Left shift until the desired bit is the left-most (highest) position;
2) Right shift (zero filling) 31 bits to eliminate all right bits
*/
The implementation of the login plan follows. Because of the 32 bit nature of bitwise operators, its my belief that the entire left 3 bytes (24 bits) must be shifted off first before we even reach the byte being worked on. Then, assuming a scenario where the 3rd bit from the left (String ordinal 2) is the desired bit, I am shifting off 2 more bits (ordinals 0 & 1), for a total of 26 bits of left shifting.
This should produce a binary number with the desired bit all the way left followed by 31 undesired zero bytes. Right shifting those 31 bits away produces a binary with 31 (now) leading zero bits which evaluates to whatever the value of the desired bit is. But of course, I would not be writing this question if THAT were true, now would I? :-)
// hardcoded, assuming the second "1" (ordinal 2) is the bit to be examined
console.log((0b10100101 << 26) >> 31); // instead of 1, returns -1
I feel like I am really close, but missing something or pushing JavaScript too hard (lol).

In JavaScript code where the 8 bits of a byte represent 8 Boolean "decisions" (aka: flags), there is a need to isolate each given bit for conversion to a Boolean variable...
If that's the actual goal, bitshifting is neither necessary nor useful: Just use a bitwise & with the desired bit, which will give you either 0 or a number with that bit set. 0 is falsy, the number with a bit set is truthy. You can either use that as-is, or force it to boolean via !!flag or Boolean(flag):
Here's your bitParser function using bitmasking:
var bitParser = function (_nTestByte, _nBitOrdinal) {
return !!(_nTestByte & Math.pow(2, _nBitOrdinal));
};
console.log(bitParser(0b10100101, 2)); // true
console.log(bitParser(0b10100101, 1)); // false
Rather than doing the Math.pow every time, of course, we'd probably be better off with a lookup table:
var bits = [
0b00000001,
0b00000010,
0b00000100,
0b00001000,
0b00010000,
0b00100000,
0b01000000,
0b10000000
];
var bitParser = function (_nTestByte, _nBitOrdinal) {
return !!(_nTestByte & bits[_nBitOrdinal]);
};
console.log(bitParser(0b10100101, 2)); // true
console.log(bitParser(0b10100101, 1)); // false

From your question I took
console.log((0b10100101 << 26) >> 31); //instead of 1, returns -1.
And to answer your question why it returned -1 instead of 1
You need to do unsigned right shift >>> instead of signed one >>
console.log((0b10100101 << 26 ) >>>31);

Yes it can, and what you're doing is almost correct.
Integers are represented as a 32bit binary number, with the leftmost bit representing the sign (it's 1 if the number is negative and 0 if the number is positive). Lets look at some of the numbers' representations:
//last 31 digits keeps increasing as the number decreases
// ...
-2 => 0b11111111111111111111111111111110
-1 => 0b11111111111111111111111111111111
0 => 0b00000000000000000000000000000000
1 => 0b00000000000000000000000000000001
2 => 0b00000000000000000000000000000010
// ...
// last 31 digits keep increasing as the number increases
Now, what you're having (0b10100101 << 26) should give you 10010100000000000000000000000000, which you'd expect to be a big negative number (because the left-most bit is 1). Then right afterwards, you have >> 31 which you're expecting to strip off all 31 bits and leave you with the left-most bit.
That should work, but it's not what's happening. And why is that? It's because the people who came up with ECMAScript thought it would make more sense if 4 >> 1 returns 2 and -4 >> 1 returns -2.
4 >> 1 // returns 2 which is 0b00000000000000000000000000000010
0b0000000000000000000000000000000100 >> 1 // returns 2, same
-4 >> 1 // returns -2, which is 0b11111111111111111111111111111110
But -4 is 0b11111111111111111111111111111100, and for your purposes right shifting it by 1 should yield 0b01111111111111111111111111111110 (big positive number, since left-post bit is 0), and that's not -2!
To overcome that, you can use the other right shift operator which doesn't care about about the sign: >>>. -4 >>> 1 is 2147483646 which is what we want.
So console.log((0b10100101 << 26) >>> 31); gives you 1, which is what you want. You can also keep using >> and regarding any negative outcome to be a result of 1 being the chosen bit.

The most simple way to achieve your actual need is to use simple conditions rather than trying to isolate bits.
var bitParser = function (_nTestByte, _nBitOrdinal) {
return (_nTestByte & _nBitOrdinal);
};
console.log(bitParser(6, 2) ? true : false); // true
console.log(bitParser(6, 1) ? true : false); // false
I adapted the console.log() expression in a way that may seem complicated.
It's only to really show the logical result at this step, while I didn't choose to use !! inside of the function, so returning a truly/falsy value rather than true|false.
Actually this way keeps all the most simple possible, because the expected use else where in the code is if (bitParser(...)), which automatically casts the result to boolean.
BTW, this works whatever is the _nTestByte size (may be more than 1 byte).

Is it correct to set bit 31 in javascript?

When I try to set 31 bit 0 | 1 << 31 I get the following result:
console.log(0 | 1 << 31); // -2147483648
Which is actualy:
console.log((-2147483648).toString(2)) // -10000000000000000000000000000000
Is it correct to set 31 bit or should I restrict to 30 to prevent negative values?

Refer to ECMA5 that the bitwise operators and shift operators operate on 32-bit ints, so in that case, the max safe integer is 2^31-1, or 2147483647.
Here is one explanation.
The << operator is defined as working on signed 32-bit integers (converted from the native Number storage of double-precision float). So 1<<31 must result in a negative number.
The only JavaScript operator that works using unsigned 32-bit integers is >>>. You can exploit this to convert a signed-integer-in-Number you've been working on with the other bitwise operators to an unsigned-integer-in-Number:
(1<<31)>>>0

Most bitwise operations are specified as converting their operands to signed 32-bit integers. It is perfectly correct to use bit 31, but yes, you'll get negative values. Usually it doesn't matter if you're doing bitwise operations anyway, since all you (should) care about is the bit pattern, not the decimal value of the number.
If you do want a positive value back, you can convert it back with >>> 0, because >>> is specified to convert its operands to unsigned 32-bit integers.
console.log((0 | 1 << 31) >>> 0);

what does the symbol >> means in javascript

What does the >> symbol mean? On this page, there's a line that looks like this:
var i = 0, l = this.length >> 0, curr;

It's bitwise shifting.
Let's take the number 7, which in binary is 0b00000111
7 << 1 shifts it one bit to the left, giving you 0b00001110, which is 14
Similarly, you can shift to the right: 7 >> 1 will cut off the last bit, giving you 0b00000011 which is 3.
[Edit]
In JavaScript, numbers are stored as floats. However, when shifting you need integer values, so using bit shifting on JavaScript values will convert it from float to integer.
In JavaScript, shifting by 0 bits will round the number down* (integer rounding) (Better phrased: it will convert the value to integer)
> a = 7.5;
7.5
> a >> 0
7
*: Unless the number is negative.
Sidenote: since JavaScript's integers are 32-bit, avoid using bitwise shifts unless you're absolutely sure that you're not going to use large numbers.
[Edit 2]
this.length >> 0 will also make a copy of the number, instead of taking a reference to it. Although I have no idea why anyone would want that.

Just like in many other languages >> operator (among << and >>>) is a bitwise shift.

Bitwise operations with big integers

I am implementing decoding of BER-compressed integers and recently I've found a weird JavaScript behavior related to bitwise operations with big integers.
E.g.:
var a = 17516032; // has 25 bits
alert(a << 7) // outputs -2052915200
alert(a * 128) // outputs 2242052096
alert(2242052096 >> 16) // outputs -31325
alert(2242052096 / 65536) // outputs 34211
While the first workaround (multiplication instead of left shift) is acceptable, the second isn't.
Why it happens? How to bear with it?

17516032 in binary is 00000001000010110100011000000000. Shifting to the left by 7 gives you 10000101101000110000000000000000. This is equal to -2052915200 in two's complement (which is how almost all computers represent negative numbers).
>> is a signed right shift. That means that the leftmost bit (which determines the sign of a number) will be shifted into the left side.
e.g.
1100 >> 2 == 1111
0111 >> 2 == 0001
If you want to do an unsigned shift (which ignores the sign bit), use >>> which will zero-fill the left end of the bitstring.

Bitwise operators work on 32 bit integers, while multiplication and division works on floating point numbers.
When you shift a number, it's converted from a floating point number to a 32 bit integer before the operations, and converted back to a floating point number after the operation. The number 2242052096 has the 32nd bit set, so it is a negative number when converted to and from a 32 bit integer.
The >> right shift operator doesn't change the sign of the value, i.e. the bits that are shifted in from the left have the same value as the sign bit. Use the >>> right shift operator to shift in zero bits instead.
Reference: MDN: Bitwise operators

(2242052096 / 65536) == (2242052096 >>> 16)
Note the different shift.

Javascript normally represents numbers as (double-precision) floating point.
Almost all bitwise operations convert to a signed 32-bit integer, do whatever they're going to do, then treat the result as a signed 32-bit integer when converting back.
The exception is >>> which treats the result as an unsigned 32-bit integer when converting back.
So:
right shifts can be made to work simply by using >>> instead of >> ;
a * 128 gives the expected answer because it's never converted to a signed 32-bit integer in the first place - it's just a floating-point multiplication;
a << 7 gives an unexpected answer because it's converted to a signed 32-bit integer, and then you shift a 1 into the sign bit, resulting in a negative signed 32-bit value.
There isn't a <<<, but if you want to write your left shift as a shift, you can use
(a << 7) >>> 0
to get the expected answer (the >>> 0 effectively casts the signed 32-bit value to an unsigned 32-bit value).