integer 32bit/32bit divide code

Started by tommy January 5, 2006
Randy Yates wrote:
>[SNIP] > I have been frustrated in the past by folks attempting to > "second-guess" me and I am treating tommy the way I would > like to be treated: to simply answer the question that was > asked. Offering more information is OK too, but first and > foremost, answer the question.
AMEN BROTHER, PREACH IT ;} As a neophyte (I've been scolded for using newbie here) on several groups, I've gotten many replys forcing me to ask the question responder thought I should be asking. A half remembered quote ~"convinced against one's will is still unconvinced" might apply. When beaten down to "accepting" an "answer" nothing actually accomplished as my original question remained unanswered. This group is more tolerant than most. It can have its humorous moments though. One well respected gentleman on another forum and seems to have "form letter" response just for me on certain topics just for me with many many many links. One of those links is to one of his articles that be thinking and then asking the questions which frustrate him ;)
Richard, it is good to know there are kindred spirits here. Go in
peace,
brother...   :)

--Brother Randy

> His application might not tolerate the time it takes, and I > want him to know that there may well be more efficient ways > to divide on his computer, and maybe even an algorithm (fraction > saving?) that avoids the need.
He didn't ask for "screamin' 32bit/32bit divide code." If that isn't what he wanted then he can respond and clarify. While "predicting" a person's real need can save time and post/response cycles in some cases, I find that in general it isn't wanted or required. This is my philosophy. You obvious don't agree, and that's OK. --RY
Randy Yates wrote:
>>His application might not tolerate the time it takes, and I >>want him to know that there may well be more efficient ways >>to divide on his computer, and maybe even an algorithm (fraction >>saving?) that avoids the need. > > > He didn't ask for "screamin' 32bit/32bit divide code." If that > isn't what he wanted then he can respond and clarify. > > While "predicting" a person's real need can save time and > post/response cycles in some cases, I find that in general > it isn't wanted or required. > > This is my philosophy. You obvious don't agree, and > that's OK.
He wants it for MPEG, presumably real time. It costs little to tell him that if brute force in C is too slow, there are alternatives. I shouldn't have thrown my bit in on your watch, as it were. Since Tommy hasn't responded once in this thread -- not even to thank you -- we're beyond any real purpose now. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:
> [...] > He wants it for MPEG, presumably real time.
Still probably not too much of a load on any PC made within the last 10 years. Presuming a 48000 Hz sample rate and 1000 clocks per division, we're up to 48 MHz, or 5 percent of a 1 GHz Pentium.
> It costs little to tell him that if brute force in C is too slow, > there are alternatives. I shouldn't have thrown my bit in on your > watch, as it were.
Maybe I'm misjudging. It seemed to complicate the matter rather than clarify or direct, especially for someone like tommy who is ostensibly naive in algorithms. Please, tell me I'm full-of-it if I'm off base.
> Since Tommy hasn't responded once in this thread -- not even to thank > you [...]
Not that I need thanking, per se, but being polite enough to acknowledge the post would be nice. That's OK, I'm used to it. It seems that many times I don't see a response. I try not to get hung up about it, but it does sorta torque my jaw. -- % Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'" %%% 919-577-9882 % %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr