| ??? 04/25/09 13:22 Read: times |
#164831 - Further optimization Responding to: ???'s previous message |
But this can be optimized further, i.e. the error-correction term don't need to be evaluated for every step. Instead it can be handled once every n steps - in this case n = int(11/3) = 3 - since you know that after the extra step has been taken, the error term can't overflow for a couple of steps. In this case, the worst-case error can be 2/11 after the correction, guaranteeing that 5/11, 8/11 will not overflow, i.e. you can always do at least 3 steps after a correction.
Another optimization is to work with signed numbers, and adjust the error term to work symmetrically around zero, to allow the processor flags to be used to indicate a correction, instead of all the time having to compare with 11. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Values interpolation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A possible start | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The Brezingham Line Drawing algorithm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham%27s_line_algorithm ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good method | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Integer Digital Differential Analyzer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simple scheme... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Further optimization | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You are absolutely right, of course,... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Having a hard time trying to understand :( | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Clarification Needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Even more confused now | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another Shot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Provided Code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Give this a try... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Look it up | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Now, we have a hard time to understand... | 01/01/70 00:00 |



