Support

If you have a problem or need to report a bug please email : support@dsprobotics.com

There are 3 sections to this support area:

DOWNLOADS: access to product manuals, support files and drivers

HELP & INFORMATION: tutorials and example files for learning or finding pre-made modules for your projects

USER FORUMS: meet with other users and exchange ideas, you can also get help and assistance here

NEW REGISTRATIONS - please contact us if you wish to register on the forum

Users are reminded of the forum rules they sign up to which prohibits any activity that violates any laws including posting material covered by copyright

Bitwise strangeness

DSP related issues, mathematics, processing and techniques

Bitwise strangeness

Postby Nowhk » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:23 pm

At the moment, I really don't understand these 2 things in FlowStone DSP Code (let isLoop = 1).

First uncertainty
Code: Select all
(isLoop > 0) & 5 => 5 // its odd; it should just be 1
(isLoop > 0) & 5 => 6 // its even; it should just be 0

in fact:

0001 (isLoop > 0) AND 0101 (5) is 0001 (1)
0001 (isLoop > 0) AND 0110 (6) is 0000 (0)

Second uncertainty
Code: Select all
(isLoop > 0) & ((22) % 40) => 2.5
(isLoop > 0) & (22) % 40 => 22

The code looks "the same" (the second one it is just without the brackets), but it outputs very different.
In fact this:

Code: Select all
output = (isLoop > 0) & (60 + 1) + (isLoop == 0) & ((50 + 1) % 1000)

output 1000 instead of 51 :shock: :o And if I change isLoop to 0, it output 1051 :o :shock: :o

Can you help me to got this? Thanks!
Nowhk
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby MyCo » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:49 pm

Comparisons return bitmasks, so in 8bit(for simplicity) this is:
Code: Select all
(1 > 0)   => true:  0b11111111
(1 < 0)   => false: 0b00000000


This should give you an idea
User avatar
MyCo
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby Nowhk » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:58 pm

MyCo wrote:Comparisons return bitmasks, so in 8bit(for simplicity) this is:
Code: Select all
(1 > 0)   => true:  0b11111111
(1 < 0)   => false: 0b00000000


This should give you an idea

Oh I see. Thanks!

And what about the second point? It seems that sum values after the comparison introduce the issues. If I remove "+1" (so 51 instead of 50+1) it works as expected.

But I don't see the point...
Nowhk
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby MyCo » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:09 pm

The second thing is a limitation (and partially a bug) of FS < 3.0.9b1, the code line just uses to many registers. Try it in the beta version there it outputs 61 (which is correct):
Code: Select all
output = (isLoop > 0) & (60 + 1) + (isLoop == 0) & ((50 + 1) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (60 + 1) + (1== 0) & ((50 + 1) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (61) + (1== 0) & ((51) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (61) + (1== 0) & (51)
output = (1> 0) & 61 + (1== 0) & 51
output = (0b1111...) & 61 + (0b0000...) & 51
output = 61 + 0
output = 61
User avatar
MyCo
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby Nowhk » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:16 pm

MyCo wrote:The second thing is a limitation (and partially a bug) of FS < 3.0.9b1, the code line just uses to many registers. Try it in the beta version there it outputs 61 (which is correct):
Code: Select all
output = (isLoop > 0) & (60 + 1) + (isLoop == 0) & ((50 + 1) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (60 + 1) + (1== 0) & ((50 + 1) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (61) + (1== 0) & ((51) % 1000)
output = (1> 0) & (61) + (1== 0) & (51)
output = (1> 0) & 61 + (1== 0) & 51
output = (0b1111...) & 61 + (0b0000...) & 51
output = 61 + 0
output = 61

I see. I'll try when I buy it (I'll wait the official release to get complete with it, after Beta).

Thanks man!
Nowhk
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby stw » Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:37 pm

MyCo wrote:The second thing is a limitation (and partially a bug) of FS < 3.0.9b1, the code line just uses to many registers. Try it in the beta version there it outputs 61 (which is correct):


Seems to be a bit more than that. Watch the asm code this line produces:
Code: Select all
streamout out;
out = (1 > 0) & ((22) % 40);

==>

Code: Select all
movaps xmm0,F1;
cmpps xmm0,F0,6;
movaps xmm0,F22;
movaps smIntVarTemp,xmm0;
movaps xmm0,F40;
...
movaps smIntVarTemp2,xmm0;
movaps xmm1,smIntVarTemp;
...
andps xmm0,xmm1;
movaps out,xmm0;


Obviously FS falsely overwrites xmm0 which yields to
Code: Select all
40 & ((22) % 40)
which explains the result of 2.5

I'm on 3.04
stw
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:09 am

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby MyCo » Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:49 pm

Yeah, weird that this was only found now... This bug was there for years, and is basically caused by a bug in the Asm code for the modulo operator. But that's only rarely used as it is quite CPU heavy anyway.

When I built the new compiler in 3.0.9b1 I found some bugs in the old compiler too (it produced very inefficient asm when using a lot of operands). The new compiler is a lot more efficient and uses SSE2.
Code: Select all
streamout out;
float _F_1=1, _F_0=0, _F_22=22, _F_40=40;

// Comparison
movaps xmm0,_F_1;
cmpps xmm0,_F_0,6;

// Modulo
movaps xmm2,_F_22;
movaps xmm1,xmm2;
divps xmm2,_F_40;
cvttps2dq xmm2,xmm2;
cvtdq2ps xmm2,xmm2;
mulps xmm2,_F_40;
subps xmm1,xmm2;

// '&' Operator
andps xmm0,xmm1;

// Assign to 'out'
movaps out,xmm0;
User avatar
MyCo
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby Nowhk » Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:22 am

MyCo wrote:But that's only rarely used as it is quite CPU heavy anyway.

This means that I should avoid modulo % on DSP code? :shock:
Nowhk
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby MyCo » Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:14 am

You can still use it, but not in complex statements
User avatar
MyCo
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bitwise strangeness

Postby Nowhk » Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:27 am

MyCo wrote:You can still use it, but not in complex statements

:D I meant: is it an heavy operation for DSP code that should be not used? (due to its intensive CPU usage?).
Nowhk
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:45 pm

Next

Return to DSP

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests