leves at elte.hu
Tue Dec 23 23:52:29 UTC 2014
I don't know how you measured the speedup, but I got 8-12x improvement for
finite numbers. By creating a new FloatArray, the speedup decreases to
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Chris Muller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>> On 22.12.2014, at 00:13, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>>> ConverterFloatArray at: 1 put: self; basicAt: 1.
>> Any reason not to use this in #asIEEE32BitWord? Endianness? Arch-dependency?
>> I see, it's not thread-safe. This would be:
>> (FloatArray new: 1) at: 1 put: self; basicAt: 1.
>> Might still be faster?
> Yes. Since creation of a one-element FloatArray every time did not
> adversely affect performance of Levente's too significantly (only 3.7X
> instead of 4.0X faster), I decided it was worth the cost of the
> allocation than to worry about concurrency. So I ended up with
> Levente's latest except I cannot risk a calculation ending up -0.0, so
> I have to account for it too. And, NaN too. Thus:
> | bits |
> self = NegativeInfinity ifTrue: [ ^ 0 ].
> self = Infinity ifTrue: [ ^ 4294967294 ].
> self = NaN ifTrue: [ ^ 4294967295 ].
> self = NegativeZero ifTrue: [ ^ 2147483651 ].
> bits := (FloatArray new: 1) at: 1 put: self; basicAt: 1.
> self < 0.0 ifTrue: [ ^ 4286578688 - bits ].
> ^ 2147483651 + bits
> Since there are not a full 32-bits worth of IEEE 32-bit floats (e.g.,
> several thousand convert to NaN), it might be wise to move +Infinity
> and NaN _down_ a bit from the very maximum, for better continuity
> between the float and integer number lines, or for potential future
> special-case needs..?
> In any case, I wanted to at least see if what we have, above, works
> for every 32-bit IEEE float. To verify that, I enumerated all Floats
> in numerical order from -Infinity to +Infinity by creating them via
> #fromIEEE32BitFloat: from the appropriate ranges.
> It hit a snag at 2151677948. Check this out:
> | this next |
> this := Float fromIEEE32Bit: 2151677949.
> next := Float fromIEEE32Bit: 2151677948.
> assert: next > this ;
> assert: ((FloatArray new: 1) at: 1 put: (next); basicAt: 1)
>> ((FloatArray new: 1) at: 1 put: (this); basicAt: 1)
> As I thought, the representations between IEEE floats and FloatArray
> floats are different-enough that their precisions align differently
> onto the 32-bit map for these two floats. IEEE's are precise-enough
> to distinguish these two floats, FloatArray representations are not.
> That these guys are considered "equal" by the FloatArray is actually
> good enough for my indexing requirement, but now I'm looking at the
> prim-fail code for FloatArray:
> at: index
> <primitive: 'primitiveAt' module: 'FloatArrayPlugin'>
> ^Float fromIEEE32Bit: (self basicAt: index)
> If this or the #at:put: primitive were to ever fail on the storage
> (at:put:) exclusive-or the access (at:) side, then it appears
> FloatArray itself would retrieve a value different than was stored..!
More information about the Squeak-dev