| ??? 08/17/06 20:34 Read: times |
#122502 - sounds reasonable Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think the simulator is making that number up. 10000 cycles, come on ?),
no, it sounds reasonable However, I think it will still be faster than the big chunk that I found. If so, then do not change to calculation, fix the lookup. It should be at least 10 times faster than calculating or something is wrong. Anyhow, write bit of code to loop it, set a bit to toggle before and after, and put the ol' scope to work timing both approaches. That is again, 10 times faster than spending days philosophising what is faster. I will bet that you will find the table lookup to be dramatically faster. Erik |
| 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 |