Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #20094

Re: two fpu compared

From	al.basili@gmail.com (alb)
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: two fpu compared
Date	2015-02-16 07:58 +0000
Message-ID	<ckdm8aF22ktU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<ck36l8Fak5nU1@mid.individual.net> <mbht2f$v21$1@dont-email.me> <ck6f5eF66ovU1@mid.individual.net> <mbl4rt$77q$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Hi David,

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
[]
>> the extra bit I got recently is that the result is converted to an 
>> integer of 11bit which, a priori, means that a lot of the low bit 
>> precision from the 32bit is anyhow lost.
>> 
>> Indeed I could calculate what the integer LSB corresponds to in terms of 
>> floating point representation and be more confident on the comparison 
>> (i.e. if floating point results are not bitwise equal does not necessary 
>> mean the integer result is going to be different).
>> 
[]
> 
> What this all boils down to is that the client wants to be sure that the
> code is "correct" - but has an unreasonable and restrictive definition
> of "correct".  It would be better to make this clear /now/, before you
> end up contracted to produce code that is impossible to make (since it
> must match the bit-exact results from matlab on "a standard PC", even
> though these results could vary between different "standard PC's").

Sound advice. Indeed I underestimated the impact of this /restriction/ 
and since we are still in the conceptual phase it would be worth to give 
a heads up to everyone so that we won't fall short during testing.

> Figure out what the client /actually/ needs, such as a variation of +/-3
> on the 10-bit PWM output, and tell them that this is a sensible goal.

We know what's the precision required on the current output (like 0.1% 
FSR) and I could, given the current regulation response, provide what's 
the precision required at the output of the floating point calculation 
(with the float_to_int as last operation).

This would allow indeed to have a reasonable target for the verification 
and avoid unattainable objectives.

Thread

two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-12 08:30 +0000
  Re: two fpu compared David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-12 10:51 +0100
    Re: two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-13 14:14 +0000
      Re: two fpu compared David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-13 16:23 +0100
        Re: two fpu compared Colin Paul de Gloucester <not_a_real_email@address.com> - 2015-02-13 17:37 +0100
          Re: two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-16 08:01 +0000
            Re: two fpu compared Colin Paul de Gloucester <not_a_real_email@address.com> - 2015-02-16 11:43 +0100
              Re: two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-17 10:35 +0000
                Re: two fpu compared David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-17 12:18 +0100
                Re: two fpu compared George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2015-02-17 09:26 -0500
                Re: two fpu compared David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-17 16:47 +0100
                Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-17 20:54 +0200
        Re: two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-16 07:58 +0000
          Re: two fpu compared David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-16 09:53 +0100
            Re: two fpu compared al.basili@gmail.com (alb) - 2015-02-16 09:47 +0000
              Re: two fpu compared Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-02-16 08:27 -0500
        Re: two fpu compared Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-02-23 00:13 +0000
      Re: two fpu compared George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2015-02-13 18:43 -0500
      Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-14 15:30 +0000
        Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-14 23:19 +0200
          Re: two fpu compared Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-02-14 23:28 +0100
          Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-15 14:33 +0000
            Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-17 20:53 +0200
              Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-18 01:55 +0000
                Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-18 17:54 +0200
                Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-18 16:52 +0000
                Re: two fpu compared Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-02-18 18:12 +0100
                Re: two fpu compared Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-18 18:02 -0600
                Re: two fpu compared Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-02-19 09:42 +0200
                Re: two fpu compared Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-19 11:04 -0600
                Re: two fpu compared Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-02-19 23:26 +0800
                Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-18 19:18 +0200
                Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-19 02:28 +0200
                Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-19 16:29 +0000
                Re: two fpu compared Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2015-02-21 16:07 +0200
  Re: two fpu compared glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-12 11:26 +0000
  Re: two fpu compared "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2015-02-12 12:29 +0100
  Re: two fpu compared Dennis <dennis@none.none> - 2015-02-12 09:45 -0600

csiph-web