Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit)

From	Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit)
Date	2012-03-29 11:53 +0000
Message-ID	<9tj0pvFmp3U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <qcs3n7ponjd09bq27qgb648fnmovco9mn1@4ax.com> <P6idndrAmPpHIe_SnZ2dnUVZ7vOdnZ2d@lyse.net> <--adnfOVp7zu1e7SnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@web-ster.com> <9thiigFdvbU2@mid.individual.net> <qco7n71gb7jlejacpqjo44toghpu263lrf@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:19:02 +0300, upsidedown wrote:

> On 28 Mar 2012 22:44:32 GMT, Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au>
> wrote:
> 
>>Weren't you the one that said that your (tuned) ARM C code was generally
>>only a factor of 1.2 worse than the best hand-tweaked assembly code?
>>Maybe not, but I've seen it said in these parts.  Certainly, my
>>experience is that that is quite good rule of thumb, and it is very
>>difficult to get more than a factor of two between assembler and C
>>unless the platform in question has a very poor C compiler or the
>>assembly code is actually implementing a different algorithm (which is
>>sometimes possible, but much rarer in these days of well-supplied
>>intrinsic function libraries.)
> 
> The main problem trying to write _low_level_ math routines in C is that
> you do not have access to the carry bit or use any rotate instruction.
> The C-compiler would have to be very clever to convert a sequence of
> C-statement into a single rotate instruction or shifting multiple bits
> into two registers.

It's a funny old world.  I've seen several compilers recognise the pair 
of shifts and an or combination as a rotate, and emit that instruction.  
I've also replaced carefully asm-"optimised" maths routines (on x86) that 
used the carry flag with "vanilla" C equivalents, and the overall effect 
was a fairly dramatic performance improvement.  Not sure whether it was a 
side effect of the assembly code pinning registers that could otherwise 
have been reassigned, or some subtle consequence of reduced dependency, 
but the result was clear.  Guessing performace on massively superscalar, 
out-of-order processors like modern x86-64 is very difficult, IMO.

Intrinsic functions (to get access to things like clz and similar) also 
help a lot.

Benchmarking is important.

Milage will definitely vary with target and toolchain...

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

Thread

Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) kishor <kiishor@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 02:22 -0700
  Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2012-03-26 12:08 +0200
  Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2012-03-26 13:14 +0200
    Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-26 13:24 +0200
      Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) kishor <kiishor@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 05:24 -0700
        Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Fredrik Östman <Fredrik_Oestman@work.invalid> - 2012-03-26 12:38 +0000
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) kishor <kiishor@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 06:33 -0700
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2012-03-26 15:49 +0200
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-26 15:45 +0200
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Fredrik Östman <Fredrik_Oestman@work.invalid> - 2012-03-26 14:34 +0000
        Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2012-03-26 15:34 +0200
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-26 12:25 -0500
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2012-03-26 20:19 +0200
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-03-26 16:45 -0400
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-26 17:15 -0500
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> - 2012-03-26 19:09 -0400
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) kishor <kiishor@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 04:59 -0700
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-27 15:25 +0200
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David T. Ashley <dashley@gmail.com> - 2012-03-29 13:17 -0400
  Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-27 11:28 +0100
  Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David T. Ashley <dashley@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 11:28 -0400
    Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) upsidedown@downunder.com - 2012-03-27 18:52 +0300
      Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David T. Ashley <dashley@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 13:02 -0400
        Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-03-27 13:56 -0500
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-27 14:17 -0500
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-03-27 15:35 -0500
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2012-03-27 22:36 -0500
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-28 09:00 +0200
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) j.m.granville@gmail.com - 2012-03-30 04:08 -0700
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> - 2012-04-02 22:52 -0700
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2012-04-03 11:33 +0100
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2012-04-03 12:05 +0000
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2012-04-03 16:34 +0100
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2012-04-04 09:35 +0100
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-04-03 13:52 -0500
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> - 2012-04-04 16:50 -0700
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2012-04-05 11:48 +0100
        Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-28 09:17 +0200
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-28 12:20 -0500
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-03-28 22:44 +0000
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-28 18:35 -0500
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-29 10:58 +0200
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> - 2012-03-29 07:56 -0700
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com> - 2012-03-29 16:52 -0500
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@comcast.net> - 2012-03-29 21:19 -0700
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2012-03-30 00:42 -0500
              Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) upsidedown@downunder.com - 2012-03-29 07:19 +0300
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2012-03-29 11:53 +0000
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-03-29 09:40 -0500
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) upsidedown@downunder.com - 2012-03-29 23:46 +0300
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-03-29 09:28 -0500
                Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-29 16:58 +0200
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-03-29 10:09 +0200
            Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) Clifford Heath <cjh@no.spam.please.net> - 2012-04-01 18:08 +1000
          Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2012-03-28 02:38 -0700
      Re: Floating point vs fixed arithmetics (signed 64-bit) upsidedown@downunder.com - 2012-03-28 22:59 +0300

csiph-web