|
Thanks mate, you're worth your weight in Palladium. 
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite welcome. I love those little things, and have been tinkering with them (now professionally too) for a little while, so i've learned a couple things about a couple things where they're concerned.
I'm always happy to share what I know. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I bought a couple of the esp with camera a while back but haven't been able to play with them. My I want to do list is getting so long that my stickie app is running out of room on my monitor...time to get a bigger monitor?, ill put it on the list...if there's room.
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I wanted to boot the Zwölf with a microcontroller, but was not able to get one anywhere.
Why?
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
For simplicity and compatibility. The original ELF had no ROM and was started by entering the first instructions manually with switches or (luxury!) a hex keypad. A microcontroller could automate that and keep a ROM out of the memory map. On the original ELF this was only a theoretical luxury, but you had all of your RAM at your disposal at all times. With my modest memory expansion a ROM would be in the way even more because it would reduce the physical address space to map my expanded RAM into.
The microcontroller also has a programmable oscillator and could start the computer with several clock frequencies, including precisely the original clock frequency for the original graphics chip, overclocking up to about 14 MHz and anything inbetween. Even single stepping bus cycles or instructions would be possible. At the flip of a switch you can have the old Elf back again and run the old stuff.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that.
Actually my "why" was on the: "but was not able to get one anywhere" part.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody seemed to have them in stock, leaving only FleaBay or China as an option.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I've bought PICs from the local electronics shop before.
Sure, at many times the price of Mouser or Digikey.
But at 5 bucks, I didn't care since I was back home with one in under 25 minutes.
I don't bother with that malarky any more. I'd rather wait 3 weeks, then go from sealed envelope to my code running on a uC in under 2 minutes.
It might be an option worth considering.
Also, fwiw, I've always had success buying them from both China and Fleabay. The worst it has been, was discovering that some (most) BluePill boards have the wrong usb data line resistors - doesn't matter, I don't use em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you dress up as the Jabberwocky 
|
|
|
|
|
For 1000 club card points I'd dress up as Attila The Hun! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be oh-so-much trouble to explain what these club card points are/do/buy/win ?
In US, most supermarkets have a club card - it's primary purpose (most of the year) is to gather information about your buying habits by making scanning it a requirement for the best discounts (typically advertised as "with card" in small print near the price).
Now occasionally, like those which just passed, some cards accumulate spending totals between certain dates (excluding certain items, like beer, cigarettes) and give you some large food item if you spend enough (often tiered, as well). I've no use for a dead turkey or pig's buttocks, so I don't every get that award.
But what do you get for 1000 club points that would make you get up and change out of your work-from-home garb (Unless you normally dress as a hun)?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Club card itself is - just as yours are - an info gathering system, but each time you use it to buy groceries, or fuel, or insurance, or ... whatever the supermarket provides ... the bill total gets added to a total, which is converted to points at a ratio of £1 spent == 1 point (except fuel where it's £2 spent == 1 point). Every three months those points are converted to a cash-equivalent voucher which can be deducted from a shopping bill (at a rate of 100 points == £1 discount). With the average family shop coming out are around £600 per month and with fuel costs, it can mean some good "not-quite-cash back".
1000 Club Card points is £10.
What can I say? I work cheap for a costume!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I work most of those cash-back points through my credit cards. It's normally at 1% of monthly net spending - but it can include enhancements.
Yahoo Visa: 3% at Yahoo, 2% for Gas Stations (fuel, repairs), Groceries, and pharmacies; 1% elsewhere
Freedom Visa: 1% but quarterly rotating categories for 5%;
Discover Plus (like Freedom Visa, but I cancelled them for being idiots).
Bank of America Mastercard and Visa: 1%, but 3% in a category you can change once/month (any day you wish during month) for 3%;
Other places offer their own version, but the "points->$" conversion is only for in-store purchases (like Costco). Sound's like yours. For Costco, to make it worse, you not only have to be a paid-member, but they only award your points annually, in February. Screw them.
Now, today, I'm actually getting a new card delivered - a Bank of America card - which gives me $200 cash back if I spend $1000 in the first three months. I'll pay my car insurance, due in a few days, with it and I have 20,000 of their points plus the normal 1% back (ca. 1400 more points).*
So - you see - if I can spend enough money I can live off the savings !
(*Logical Extrapolation: you'd wear a sequined tutu for that kind of money!)
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: you'd wear a sequined tutu for that kind of money!
What?
Again?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I've now entered bizarro land, and I'm programming without conditional branching in code.
That means no ifs, no whiles, no dos.
Superscalar architectures use branch prediction to get way out in front of your instructions - basically it executes ahead - which is cool when it gets it right, but costly when it realizes it has been executing the wrong code this time around.
So one way to prevent branch mispredictions is to ... wait for it! avoid branching.
so instead of say, writing
if(0!=foo)
printf("foo\r\n");
else
printf("bar\r\n");
you do like
const char* szfoo="foo";
const char* szbar="bar";
printf("%s\r\n",(szfoo*!!foo)+(szbar*!!(!foo)));
or something to that effect.
printf() probably branches anyway, but I'm just trying to illustrate a concept.
The weird thing is, it generates more, and slower code, because you have to do a bunch of calculations any time you want to simulate branching.
However, they have SIMD which loves branchless code, and can often be used to "pay for" the extra overhead of those computations.
It's funny when you think about it, because effectively, to let the CPU get way out ahead you have to perform a bunch of extra multiplies and adds, that you essentially waste, but it doesn't matter because you're doing 4 of them at a time, and wasting 2 or 3.
So you break even cycle per cycle on the branchless code, but the CPU still executes it faster because of branch prediction, prefetching, and all of that.
Or at least that's how i understand it so far. I'm learning a lot from the simdjson developers.
Fun times.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I stumbled across this[^], about C++20 adding [[likely]] and [[unlikely]] to give compilers hints about this kind of thing. The proprietary language in which I worked for many years introduced the tags <usual> and <rare> in the early '90s for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that seems like it has more to do with how the compiler arranges its jump tables, than how the CPU predicts branches, but I could be wrong, or could be talking about the same thing without realizing it.
I'm still new to this myself. I did a little SIMD before, but only for DSP stuff and you already don't need ifs for that.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I think that seems like it has more to do with how the compiler arranges its jump tables, than how the CPU predicts branches, but I could be wrong
Yep, that's exactly what it does. With MSVC you would use the _mm_prefetch intrinsic to ask the cpu to cache a memory address.
Probably best to avoid it. 
|
|
|
|
|
for my part, I'm avoiding those kinds of things, preferring to rely on optimizations present in (usually, and for reasons) the C stdlib like string.h's strpbrk() and math.h's max() function
however, in order to make those branchless implementations really work effectively i still have to avoid branching in my own code. I expect the compiler to take my branchless code and apply SIMD instructions to its implementation of it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I never got into the details but simply recall that, at least on that system, it allowed the mainline path to avoid branching, which made the code run faster.
|
|
|
|
|
likely & unlikely are used so the optimiser can reorder code around conditional branches to suit the CPU best - this blog post gives some background & some performance measurements.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, that's what i thought. basically, so it can build better jump tables and such.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
No, it affects the code sequences generated by the compiler. Consider these two functions:
unsigned count;
#define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1)
#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
unsigned f1(unsigned x) {
if (likely(x > count)) {
++count;
} else {
--count;
}
return count;
}
unsigned f2(unsigned x) {
if (unlikely(x > count)) {
++count;
} else {
--count;
}
return count;
}
The use of likely vs unlikely causes different code to be generated for the two functions (this is with clang 11, with the -O3 flag). In f1, there's a branch to the --count case, while in f2, there's a branch to the ++count case - in each case, there's a branch to the code considered to be 'unlikely', whereas the control flow just falls through the branch instruction to the 'likely' case. No jump tables here.
f1(unsigned int): # <a href="https://www.codeproject.com/Members/F1">@f1</a>(unsigned int)
mov ecx, dword ptr [rip + count]
cmp ecx, edi
setb dl
mov eax, 1
test dl, 1
je .LBB0_1
add eax, ecx
mov dword ptr [rip + count], eax
ret
.LBB0_1:
mov eax, -1
add eax, ecx
mov dword ptr [rip + count], eax
ret
f2(unsigned int): # <a href="https://www.codeproject.com/Members/f2">@f2</a>(unsigned int)
mov ecx, dword ptr [rip + count]
cmp ecx, edi
setb al
test al, 1
jne .LBB1_1
mov eax, -1
add eax, ecx
mov dword ptr [rip + count], eax
ret
.LBB1_1:
mov eax, 1
add eax, ecx
mov dword ptr [rip + count], eax
ret
count:
.long 0 # 0x0
You can find this on Compiler Explorer.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, to me that's still a jump table, just with two entries - one of which falls through. I wonder how the compiler would generate code for more cases?
Admittedly, I'm using the term maybe loosely, as I tend to think very abstractly, so if something feels like a jump table then i have no problem calling it that.
My point in making the distinction anyway, is my comment to Greg Utas i was making the distinction between code like this (whether an actual "jump table" or just two possibilities) nd what i was initially talking about, which is enabling branch prediction - a different animal. i don't think likely and unlikely directly impact branch prediction (although they likely do indirectly) - they affect the order the jumps come in, as your code basically demonstrates.
Adding, I probably should have said jump order, and part of the reason i didn't is i first learned about it in the context of switch/case
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 4-Jan-21 13:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
