[PD-dev] [PD] denormals: svf, freeverb (was Re: bug in freeverb???)
Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans at at.or.at
Sat Aug 15 18:21:35 CEST 2009
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 <damon at karuna.eclipse.co..uk>
>> wrote:
>>> From: Damon Chaplin <damon at karuna.eclipse.co.uk>
>>> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] denormals: svf, freeverb (was Re: [PD] bug
>>> in freeverb???)
>>> To: "Ed Kelly" <morph_2016 at yahoo.co.uk>
>>> Cc: "PD List" <pd-list at iem.at>, "pddev" <pd-dev at 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 at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at 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
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list