On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:11:34 -0300
Juan Linietsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for not checking, but I guess it could be good for the record (and
people googling for it) to ask here..
The macro for dealing denormals that I have is:
#define undenormalise(sample) if(((*(unsigned
Since the problem is denormalised numbers, has anybody thought of
adding a small DC offset (1e-15) or alternating the
addition/subraction of a small value?
of course it is possible to add a small dc offset ... but what if we are
working in a feedback loop? or even worse with a high pass filter?
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:11:34 -0300
Juan Linietsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for not checking, but I guess it could be good for the record (and
people googling for it) to ask here..
The macro for dealing denormals that I have is:
#define undenormalise(sample)
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:37:35 +0100
Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inline float FlushToZero( volatile float f )
{
f += 9.8607615E-32f;
return f - 9.8607615E-32f;
}
/* end */
The people who discovered it first call this method
Elimination by Quantification.
Its slightly
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:03:34 +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote
Since the problem is denormalised numbers, has anybody thought of
adding a small DC offset (1e-15) or alternating the
addition/subraction of a small value?
of course it is possible to add a small dc offset ... but what if we
are
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:36:47 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:37:35 +0100
Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inline float FlushToZero( volatile float f )
{
f += 9.8607615E-32f;
return f - 9.8607615E-32f;
}
There we go!!! That is an elegant
A lot of people mailed me about a missing file (scale-points.txt,
attached), it should be there, but I'm not sure why its needed cos the
file that is built from it is in hte tarball.
Anyway, I've attached it.
- Steve
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 07:54:04PM +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:11:34AM -0300, Juan Linietsky wrote:
#define undenormalise(sample) if(((*(unsigned int*)sample)0x7f80)==0)
sample=0.0f
however gcc 3.3 and 3.4 seem to produce an undesired effect
when the optimizer is turned on, rendering this macro unusable..
this breaks
Steve Harris wrote:
You can do
y += delta
y -= delta
but youre at the mercy of the optimiser.
The IEEE standard specifies exactly what happens with denormals, so,
in theory, the compiler must not optimize this away. However,
optimization options for speed often disable strict IEEE
FishSound 0.6.3 Release
---
libfishsound provides a simple programming interface for decoding and
encoding audio data using Xiph.Org codecs (Vorbis and Speex).
This release is available as a source tarball at:
Greetings:
I've recently updated my tutorial on using VST/VSTi plugins under Linux :
http://www.djcj.org/LAU/quicktoots/toots/vst-plugins/
It now includes material regarding the fst project as well as the
vstserver.
Best regards,
Dave Phillips
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:20:34 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
The IEEE standard specifies exactly what happens with denormals, so,
in theory, the compiler must not optimize this away. However,
optimization options for speed often disable strict IEEE
compatibility. (I don't know how gcc's
I have a denormal fix without a branch but you probably don't want to see it ;-)
It's pretty simple, just OR the bits of the exponent together which gives either
0 (denormal) or 1, typecast that to float, and then multiply the original float
by that (0.0 or 1.0). Voila, no branch, but it is
On Thursday 24 June 2004 06:21, Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:36:47 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:37:35 +0100
Simon Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
inline float FlushToZero( volatile float f )
{
f += 9.8607615E-32f;
return f -
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:10:37 -0300, Juan Linietsky wrote:
inline float FlushToZero( volatile float f )
{
f += 9.8607615E-32f;
return f - 9.8607615E-32f;
}
That actually looks nice... since thanks to writing volatile float f,
the optimizer should not touch it.. it'
Hi all,
Bit of a dumb question I think, but I'm running jack realtime in
softmode, and I'm getting sporadic cases of this:
delay of 557251.000 usecs exceeds estimated spare time of 21355.000;
restart ...
too many consecutive interrupt delays ... engine pausing
cycle execution failure, exiting
Steve Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:10:37 -0300, Juan Linietsky wrote:
inline float FlushToZero( volatile float f )
{
f += 9.8607615E-32f;
return f - 9.8607615E-32f;
}
That actually looks nice... since thanks to writing volatile float f,
the optimizer should not touch
17 matches
Mail list logo
