[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 208] implement CORDIC in a general way sufficient to do transcendentals

[bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208

--- Comment #38 from Michael Nolan <mtnolan2640 at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #36)
> 
> (just running the tests, you forgot to commit cordic/renormalize.py.
>  for future reference, use "git status" and you should spot missing
>  files, fairly easily.  that's if we're properly maintaining ".gitignore")

Oops, fixed!
> 
> 
> > However, for the conversion back to floating point I had to write my own
> > class to do so, as none of the existing ones (used in fpadd for instance)
> > support *two* outputs. 
> 
> yeah, keenly aware of that.
> 
> > I don't imagine we want to continue using my
> > implementation, so what would be the best way of going about this?
> 
> hmmm hmmm well we will actually need double-output functions at some
> point (and more): NORMALISE, DOTPRODUCT, they're all multi-output.
> 
> however for the plain "SIN" and "COS" operations - and others that
> will use "General CORDIC" - we simply *drop* the output on the floor
> if it's unused.
> 
> if however we do macro-op fusion, spotting two (commonly-used)
> operations together, the two results *will* be needed.

Ah ok, so maybe I should add an input that selects one or the other? (kinda
sucks that we need to calculate both for the cordic to work, oh well)


(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #37)
> ah excellent!  you did a FSM-based version as well, that's superb.
> if the pipelined version turns out to be insanely gate-hungry, or
> just not that important, we can use it.

Unfortunately, that one isn't as complete as the pipelined one. It doesn't
handle denormals or 0 well because I had to roll my own denormalization stage
instead of using the existing one from the multiplier. And it doesn't (yet)
support conversion back into floating point at the end. 

> 
> also as a "general-purpose library" it's extremely useful to have
> because other developers might not want a full pipeline version.

Makes sense.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.