[PD] [bob~] denormals issue?

[katja]

Without -O flags you get debug-level and all function inlining is
disabled, depending on the code it can make a huge difference indeed.
But Pd is probably compiled with at least -O2. So the flags don't make
much difference. The compiler? Doesn't Miller compile with MinGW
nowadays, I don't know. MinGW brings its own standard C libs, which
may implement math functions differently than MS. But regarding
denormals I guess they both respect the IEEE 754 standard.

You can check if you really have subnormals using attached patch
denorm-test.pd you. The patch tests lop~, change it to bob~.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at> wrote:
> the SSE optimizations don't seem to matter at all. skipping -ffast-math gives a slight overall CPU rise, while skipping -O3 gives me huge CPU rise (20 bob~ filters are already to much for one core). Even when skipping all of those flags, the denormals issue is still not present.
>
> Maybe it has something to do with the compiler?
>
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 um 22:47 Uhr
>> Von: katja <katjavetter at gmail.com>
>> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>, "pd-list at lists.iem.at" <pd-list at lists.iem.at>
>> Betreff: Re: Re: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
>>
>> I'm curious to know if the flags do flush denormals on your processor.
>> Forgot to mention that '-O3 -ffast-math' are also set,
>> platform-independent. So if you have a chance to try which flag does
>> something... It's just curiosity.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at> wrote:
>> > Hi Katja,
>> >
>> >> Even if your test reveals a beneficial effect from compiler flags,
>> >> it is better when denormals are detected and flushed in the C code.
>> >
>> > definitely! Maybe using the PD_BIGORSMALL macro on each filter state at the end of the DSP routine does the trick, just like in all the other recursive filters in Pd.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Von: katja <katjavetter at gmail.com>
>> >> An: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
>> >> Cc: pd-list <pd-list at iem.at>, "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
>> >> Betreff: Re: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
>> >>
>> >> Hi Christof,
>> >>
>> >> Makefile.pdlibbuilder passes flags '-march=pentium4 -msse -msse2
>> >> -mfpmath=sse' for optimization to the compiler on Windows. You could
>> >> try compiling without (some of) these flags to see if they are
>> >> responsible for the different behavior. Makefile-defined optimization
>> >> flags can be overriden with argument CFLAGS given on command line.
>> >>
>> >> The effect of optimization flags on denormals varies per processor
>> >> type, unfortunately. When we had denormals on Raspberry Pi ARMv6 they
>> >> wouldn't go away no matter what flags, is what I remember. Even if
>> >> your test reveals a beneficial effect from compiler flags, it is
>> >> better when denormals are detected and flushed in the C code. Anyway,
>> >> it is still interesting to know what makes the difference.
>> >>
>> >> Katja
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Christof Ressi <christof.ressi at gmx.at> wrote:
>> >> > Hmmm... I compiled [bob~] myself with MinGW and pd-lib-builder and I noticed two things:
>> >> > 1) the CPU rise is gone
>> >> > 2) it needs only half the CPU. I put 20 [bob~] objects in a switched subpatch and measured the CPU load. The DLL which comes with the Windows binaries needs 15%, while my own DLL needs only 7%! That's quite a deal...
>> >> >
>> >> > Christof
>> >> >
>> >> > PS: I attached the DLL in case you wanna try it yourself.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. September 2016 um 22:58 Uhr
>> >> >> Von: "Christof Ressi" <christof.ressi at gmx.at>
>> >> >> An: pd-list at iem.at, "Miller Puckette" <msp at ucsd.edu>
>> >> >> Betreff: [PD] [bob~] denormals issue?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Miller,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> feeding audio into [bob~] and then going to zero will increase the CPU load by ca. 6%. Clearing the filter or adding a tiny amount of noise brings the CPU load back to its usual level immediately, so I guess it's a problem with denormals.
>> >> >> My Pd load meter won't really show the increase, but it's clearly visibly on Process Explorer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> See my attached patch. Tried with Pd 0.47.1, Lenovo Thinkpad L440, Windows 7.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Christof_______________________________________________
>> >> >> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> >> >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>> >> >>
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>> >> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: denorm-test.pd
Type: text/x-puredata
Size: 2825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160921/c6f6753f/attachment.bin>