Oh, and btw.: Doing this primes-thingy on an NXT is a very good exercise. You learn a lot about the endless possibilities of optimization. It's an advantage, that the NXT is so slow, as you feel a greater impact of slow vs. fast code. With all the peculiarities of NXC...
Also, everyone has the EXACT same hardware at home an can reproduce the results here and join the tuning contest, which is not given when using different computers...
NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
RWTH - Mindstorms NXT Toolbox for MATLAB
state of the art in nxt remote control programming
http://www.mindstorms.rwth-aachen.de
MotorControl now also in Python, .net, and Mathematica
state of the art in nxt remote control programming
http://www.mindstorms.rwth-aachen.de
MotorControl now also in Python, .net, and Mathematica
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
I'm curious, I don't understand....linusa wrote:There are possible performance improvements with this setbitarr and readbitarr code:
1.) Shift operations are slow in NXC (if anybody is interested, have a look at my NXC profiler and try for yourself, the results should be around here somewhere (or on nxtasy :/) ). You can pre-calc the 8 possible bitmasks:
Code: Select all
byte mask[0] = 1; byte mask[1] = 2; byte mask[2] = 4; byte mask[3] = 8; byte mask[4] = 16; //...
You should also pre-calc ~mask to avoid the not-op.Code: Select all
// this: byte mask = 1 << (idx % 8); // then becomes: mask[idx % 8]; // use in both functions, of course!
Since array-lookups are (fairly) slow in NXC, you could try using a big SWITCH and see how fast it gets.
2.) In general, compiler like "const" keywords. Sophisticated compilers (gcc, MS VisualC++) will probably recognize many situations where you don't use "const" but don't modify the value, but it can't help to use it as much as possible in NXC, as it's probably not as optimizing as other compilers (just a guess).
Also, inlining the bittarr functions seems reasonable!
3.) Consider splitting the functions to setbitarrtrue, setbitarrfalse, and togglebitarr (with its own binary op). Then you save the if (?-op) and make the function smaller, if you know what you want to set (in Erasthothenes Sieve, you probably always want to set to true/false inside the loop).
4.) Try reducing calls to the bitarr functions and/or caching values...
what's the complete code?
Code: Select all
void setbitarr( unsigned long idx, bool value ){
byte mask = 1 << (idx % 8);
mask[idx % 8]; ...? <------------------------? value....?
}
bool readbitarr( unsigned long idx ){
byte mask = 1 << (idx % 8);
mask[idx % 8];
return ...? <------------------ ? what?
}
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 05:03
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
Hi Doc,
looking at your earlier code where you tested the unoptimized version of the bit array. I think you need to change the following line...
To be...
To make things work correctly. I'm no expert on NXC so I may be wrong but I notice that readbitarray is defined as a bool which in C means that any none zero value is true and a zero value is false. The actual code used in readbitarray will return values ranging from 1-128 as "true" values, so testing against a return value of 1 may be giving you the incorrect results....
Andy
looking at your earlier code where you tested the unoptimized version of the bit array. I think you need to change the following line...
Code: Select all
if(readbitarr(i)!=1) {
Code: Select all
if(!readbitarr(i)) {
Andy
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
thank you andy,
you are right, now I get the correct results for primes <=32000!
also testing of primes <= 240000 now works correctly!
you are right, now I get the correct results for primes <=32000!
also testing of primes <= 240000 now works correctly!
Code: Select all
limit biggest prime number of primes runtime
32000 31991 3432 33795
240000 239999 21220 266427
-
- Posts: 323
- Joined: 29 Sep 2010, 05:03
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
Hi Doc,
that's good news. How do those time compare to your original method and to the best alternatives that can manage the higher numbers?
Andy
that's good news. How do those time compare to your original method and to the best alternatives that can manage the higher numbers?
Andy
Re: NXC: large bit array (Gimmick)
Code: Select all
// testing on modulus(i)==0
limit runtime
32000 54.1 s
240000 758.3 s
1000000 1650.0 s
10000000 40.5 h
// testing Eratosthenes by char array
limit runtime
32000 14.2 s
240000 -
1000000 -
10000000 -
// testing Eratosthenes by "bit array"
limit runtime
32000 33.8 s
240000 266.4 s
1000000 -
10000000 -
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 9 guests