??? 08/17/06 20:15 Modified: 08/17/06 20:33 Read: times |
#122499 - I forgot to mention ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
... this stuff never ran on a '51. It started out with a 68k and moved to various other architectures from that.
Yes, I tried the C code for square root calculation on a '51 simulator just for fun and it still takes quite a while (~800 us @ 12 Mhz on a 1-clocker, but somehow I think the simulator is making that number up. 10000 cycles, come on ?), but that's mainly because there's some bit-shifting involved that would work much better when done in assembly (most compilers are horrible at tasks like "shift two MSBs of variable A into the two LSBs of variable B"), or on a processor that can natively shift 32 bit integers, or by doing it in C in a way that avoids shifting anything larger than 8 bit most of the time. However, I think it will still be faster than the big chunk that I found. |
Topic | Author | Date |
Things you find ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
10 lines PLUS a whole bunch of 'lines' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I forgot to mention ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
sounds reasonable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I'll optimize it tomorrow. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
haven't heard of that one | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Do it using the RLC instruction. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Optimized results: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
how does the lookup table approach time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Comparison: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Table error | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
No error. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So how did you calculate/measure the average? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Right below the table: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I do the same thing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Lookup table will win hands down | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
For floats, yes. For long ints ... not so sure. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
one more thing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
if the precision is not 'critical' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Another source | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
What about a Hardware Solution? | 01/01/70 00:00 |