| ??? 08/22/06 06:34 Modified: 08/22/06 07:11 Read: times |
#122752 - Right below the table: Responding to: ???'s previous message |
tested with input values from 0 to 4294840760, step size 10357.
I ran the algorithms in the simulator to get the min/avg/max execution times. |
| 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 |