in [DSP]

Prev: Kenlighten - A social network for knowledge seekers and providers
Next: help on abs() within matlab
From: Tim Wescott on 8 Jun 2010 23:48 On 06/08/2010 06:58 PM, Randy Yates wrote: > Tim Wescott<tim (a)seemywebsite.now> writes:>> [...] >> Is this C? Do you have to stick to C? C really doesn't like >> Q1.anything -- it's only native fixed-point data type is integer, and >> it sticks to it like glue. > > Er, all fixed-point processing uses plain integer > operations. Fixed-point is all in how you interpret things. > > There is nothing inherently "non-fixed-point" in C. C is just fine for > fixed-point processing. In most processor instruction sets, multiplying two N-bit registers coughs up an 2*N bit answer. In most of the rest there's a "multiply and return high" and a "multiply and return low". In most of the slim remainder (getting fatter with all the fixed point DSP's out there) there is some fast way of getting one or the other part -- including many DSP chips that have a straight "multiply fractional and accumulate" or "multiply with shift and accumulate". C discards the high half, and returns the low. For fractional arithmetic, you want the high half, shifted up one. C is just fine for _integer_ processing, but wastes a lot of steps for fixed point _fractional_ processing. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 8 Jun 2010 23:55 Randy Yates <yates (a)ieee.org> wrote:(snip) > Er, all fixed-point processing uses plain integer > operations. Fixed-point is all in how you interpret things. Yes, but you need different product bits for multiply, and different dividend bits for divide. That isn't so easy in high-level language integer operations. Many processors generate a 2N bit product and accept a 2N bit dividend, but it is not so easy in high-level languages. > There is nothing inherently "non-fixed-point" in C. > C is just fine for fixed-point processing. -- glen
From: robert bristow-johnson on 9 Jun 2010 00:15 On Jun 8, 11:48 pm, Tim Wescott <t... (a)seemywebsite.now> wrote:> On 06/08/2010 06:58 PM, Randy Yates wrote: > > > Tim Wescott<t... (a)seemywebsite.now> writes:> >> [...] > >> Is this C? Do you have to stick to C? C really doesn't like > >> Q1.anything -- it's only native fixed-point data type is integer, and > >> it sticks to it like glue. > > > Er, all fixed-point processing uses plain integer > > operations. Fixed-point is all in how you interpret things. > > > There is nothing inherently "non-fixed-point" in C. C is just fine for > > fixed-point processing. > > In most processor instruction sets, multiplying two N-bit registers > coughs up an 2*N bit answer. In most of the rest there's a "multiply > and return high" and a "multiply and return low". In most of the slim > remainder (getting fatter with all the fixed point DSP's out there) > there is some fast way of getting one or the other part -- including > many DSP chips that have a straight "multiply fractional and accumulate" > or "multiply with shift and accumulate". > > C discards the high half, and returns the low. For fractional > arithmetic, you want the high half, shifted up one. > > C is just fine for _integer_ processing, but wastes a lot of steps for > fixed point _fractional_ processing. i dunno where you'll get 16-bit words nowadaze in C. maybe the type "short", is that usually 16 bit or is even short 32 bits? anyway, assuming "short" is 16 bits and "long" is 32 bits, i've always felt that C errs when the intermediate result of short x short is still a short. without promoting a short to a long first (which might cost the processor an instruction cycle), a short times short should be inherently a long. and maybe a long times a long should be a "long long" until it's implicitly or explicitly cast back to a long. or maybe that would waste an instruction cycle or two, i dunno. but, definitely, if C were doing what it should, a short times short should be a long without having to cast one or the other operand first. that's what i think, anyway. but i know C doesn't do that. r b-j
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 9 Jun 2010 02:56 robert bristow-johnson <rbj (a)audioimagination.com> wrote:(snip) > anyway, assuming "short" is 16 bits and "long" is 32 bits, i've always > felt that C errs when the intermediate result of short x short is > still a short. without promoting a short to a long first (which might > cost the processor an instruction cycle), a short times short should > be inherently a long. In general, C promotes any integer type smaller than int to int before doing most operations on it. On a system with 32 bit int (most these days) multiply will generate a 32 bit result. There is a fair chance that the compiler will figure that out and use a 16x16-->32 multiply. > and maybe a long times a long should be a "long > long" until it's implicitly or explicitly cast back to a long. or > maybe that would waste an instruction cycle or two, i dunno. but, > definitely, if C were doing what it should, a short times short should > be a long without having to cast one or the other operand first. > that's what i think, anyway. but i know C doesn't do that. At least gcc will figure out that if you cast one (or both) operands of multiply from int (or long) to long long to use a 32x32-->64 multiply instruction. It won't generate other parts of the product which will always be zero. I haven't tried it on other compilers, but they likely do it, too. (It might be that it needs more than -O0, I haven't checked lately.) -- glen
From: Tim Wescott on 9 Jun 2010 10:33
On 06/08/2010 09:15 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On Jun 8, 11:48 pm, Tim Wescott<t... (a)seemywebsite.now> wrote:>> On 06/08/2010 06:58 PM, Randy Yates wrote: >> >>> Tim Wescott<t... (a)seemywebsite.now> writes:>>>> [...] >>>> Is this C? Do you have to stick to C? C really doesn't like >>>> Q1.anything -- it's only native fixed-point data type is integer, and >>>> it sticks to it like glue. >> >>> Er, all fixed-point processing uses plain integer >>> operations. Fixed-point is all in how you interpret things. >> >>> There is nothing inherently "non-fixed-point" in C. C is just fine for >>> fixed-point processing. >> >> In most processor instruction sets, multiplying two N-bit registers >> coughs up an 2*N bit answer. In most of the rest there's a "multiply >> and return high" and a "multiply and return low". In most of the slim >> remainder (getting fatter with all the fixed point DSP's out there) >> there is some fast way of getting one or the other part -- including >> many DSP chips that have a straight "multiply fractional and accumulate" >> or "multiply with shift and accumulate". >> >> C discards the high half, and returns the low. For fractional >> arithmetic, you want the high half, shifted up one. >> >> C is just fine for _integer_ processing, but wastes a lot of steps for >> fixed point _fractional_ processing. > > i dunno where you'll get 16-bit words nowadaze in C. maybe the type > "short", is that usually 16 bit or is even short 32 bits? On just about any processor whose native word length is 8- or 16 bits an 'int' is 16 bits. The ANSI spec says that a short is guaranteed to be at least 16 bits with no upper bound, an int is guaranteed to be the same size or bigger than a short, and a long is guaranteed to be at least 32 bits, again with no upper bound. I can't remember if a long long is guaranteed to be 64 bits, or even if it's guaranteed to be there by the standard (it's not guaranteed to be there by the marketplace). So generally on an 8- or 16-bit machine the tools will set short and int to 16 bits, and long to 32. On a 64-bit machine, everything will be 64 bits. Assuming that something is so on an AVR or a fixed-point DSP chip just because it is so on your desktop is a deadly way to do embedded programming. > anyway, assuming "short" is 16 bits and "long" is 32 bits, i've always > felt that C errs when the intermediate result of short x short is > still a short. without promoting a short to a long first (which might > cost the processor an instruction cycle), a short times short should > be inherently a long. and maybe a long times a long should be a "long > long" until it's implicitly or explicitly cast back to a long. or > maybe that would waste an instruction cycle or two, i dunno. but, > definitely, if C were doing what it should, a short times short should > be a long without having to cast one or the other operand first. > that's what i think, anyway. but i know C doesn't do that. C was not designed to do DSP -- it was designed to do system programming. Generally this deficiency doesn't show up too badly, but it does when you want to do fixed-point arithmetic that's anything other than integer. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com |