Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Random numbers et al
Re: Random numbers et al
From: Blue Chip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 13:17:50 +0100
>>...yes, this was the bit I was suggesting could be optimised!?
>Do you feel that Rockbox is sluggish? And if so, do you know that it is
>sluggish because of those libraries?
>We use those libraries because they are well-tested and they work. They
>are "stolen" from Newlib.
>Regarding the random algorithm, we use the Mersenne Twister because people
>complained about our (very lame) random generator in the past. We ended up
>using the twister because it works and it is good.
>Now you complain that it is too complex, too slow and too big. Well, we
>can't satisfy all of you, sorry.
My hope had been to offer something to Rockbox community.
There are zero docs on how the firmware works or how it "hangs together"
(its basic structure) and code comments are almost unheard of. So I am
struggling to work out what is going on. This is *NOT* intended as a
criticism, it is merely an honest observation.
My _job_ is writing mega-optimised code for PC BIOSes and other relevant
embedded chips for "critical systems" and hence this is probably my
speciality - I thought that I would offer you the benefit of my skills. I
am _genuinely_ surprised at how much resistance I have come across!
My recent hobby-work was writing decompiler and silicon level simulator for
a series of MIPS based dvd players. You can imagine how I felt when it was
suggested that my skills would be best applied to "making the cursor flash"
(see IRC logs.)
I have *NOT* "complained" about your rand(), what I said was nothing more
than MY opinon based on MY experience and observations of the code - I was
offering you an alternative which I honestly thought would benefit the
Rockbox effort - but again, I have only succeeded in offending :(
Received on 2003-04-08