robert bristow-johnson wrote:> in article eJWdnfoJfaSMzMzfRVn-1g@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote > on 04/04/2005 10:36: > > >>>well, they don't tell you about it when they do. (i've had errors because >>>of fabrication or mask problems with both the 56K and the early SHArC. it >>>can be very frustrating.) >>> >> >>Be precise, Robert. What you're claiming is that sometimes DSPs _make_ >>errors. I stand resolute. :-) > > > that's funny, i was just making a reference to such a phrase...I was parroting you. No mockery intended; just proof that I read you.> anyway, i am talking about version 0.6 silicon of the ADSP-21062 SHArC (in > 1996) that literally crashed when certain instructions were executed and > other problems that i can't remember (some of these bugs did get fixed by > 1.0 silicon). sorta like that floating-point error that was discovered on > the Intel Pentiums sometime last decade, that embarrassed Intel so much that > the did a total recall of that particular chip. > > i would call that a "chip making an error".So would I, and I did. It is not a chip *giving* an error. Compilers and linkers give (i.e., report) errors. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Help with FFT for DSP
Started by ●March 23, 2005
Reply by ●April 4, 20052005-04-04
Reply by ●April 5, 20052005-04-05
in article zoKdnQCPlt40w8zfRVn-iQ@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote on 04/04/2005 11:34:> robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> in article eJWdnfoJfaSMzMzfRVn-1g@rcn.net, Jerry Avins at jya@ieee.org wrote >> on 04/04/2005 10:36: >> >> >>>> well, they don't tell you about it when they do. (i've had errors because >>>> of fabrication or mask problems with both the 56K and the early SHArC. it >>>> can be very frustrating.) >>>> >>> >>> Be precise, Robert. What you're claiming is that sometimes DSPs _make_ >>> errors. I stand resolute. :-) >> >> >> that's funny, i was just making a reference to such a phrase... > > I was parroting you.i eventually picked that up (had to check posting times). perhaps Jim might be right if he says i'm a little slow.> No mockery intended; just proof that I read you.i didn't take it that way.>> anyway, i am talking about version 0.6 silicon of the ADSP-21062 SHArC (in >> 1996) that literally crashed when certain instructions were executed and >> other problems that i can't remember (some of these bugs did get fixed by >> 1.0 silicon). sorta like that floating-point error that was discovered on >> the Intel Pentiums sometime last decade, that embarrassed Intel so much that >> the did a total recall of that particular chip. >> >> i would call that a "chip making an error". > > So would I, and I did. It is not a chip *giving* an error. Compilers and > linkers give (i.e., report) errors.i get it. (sloooooowly) -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
