I thought that compiling with -ffast-math disabled the denormal
stuff. Or maybe it was a different compiler flag. That might be an
easier route to deal with denormals.
.hc
On Aug 15, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Martin Peach wrote:
I wonder if this line, right after you check "in" for denormality,
might not be causing trouble:
// very slight waveshape for extra stability
sv->b = sv->b - sv->b * sv->b * sv->b * 0.001f;
Since cubing a tiny number and multiplying it by .001 could end up
creating a denormal, which isn't checked for until it's gone through
a series of further computations and ends up as the new "in".
Also (I don't really know), I thought that denormals were caught as
a processor exception whenever they occurred, so neutralizing them
in the code after the fact won't do anything to speed up the
process, except to prevent a cascade of denormals. The thing to do
would be to replace the exception handler with your own.
A bunch of interesting stuff here:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/x87-and-sse-floating-point-assists-in-ia-32-flush-to-zero-ftz-and-denormals-are-zero-daz/
....where the conclusion reads:
"To avoid serialization and performance issues due to denormals and
underflow numbers, use the SSE and SSE2 instructions to set Flush-to-
Zero and Denormals-Are-Zero modes within the hardware to enable
highest performance for floating-point applications."
Martin
Ed Kelly wrote:
Hi Damon,
I have tried to implement this technique, to fix the svf~ and I am
still getting denormal errors pegging the CPU. Is there anything I
have missed do you think? After reading a little bit about unions
and uint32_t I think I've used them correctly...
If this bug can be zapped for good then I'd like to eliminate
denormal errors from the svn for good!
Best,
Ed
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Damon Chaplin <da...@karuna.eclipse.co..uk>
wrote:
From: Damon Chaplin <da...@karuna.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] denormals: svf, freeverb (was Re: [PD] bug
in freeverb???)
To: "Ed Kelly" <morph_2...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "PD List" <pd-l...@iem.at>, "pddev" <pd-dev@iem.at>
Date: Friday, 14 August, 2009, 1:51 PM
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:06 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:03 +0100, Damon Chaplin
wrote:
if (u.int_value &
0x7f800000)
fv = 0.0f;
Oops. That should be:
if (u.int_value & 0x7f800000 == 0)
fv = 0.0f;
Or even better:
if ((u.int_value & 0x7f800000) == 0)
fv = 0.0f;
Damon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
_______________________________________________
pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to computers should be unlimited and total. - the hacker ethic
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
Pd-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
