On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Devin Heitmueller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Trent Piepho <xyzzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > == rant mode on == > Wow, I think we have lost our minds! > > The argument being put forth is based on the relative efficiency of > the multiply versus divide opcodes on modern CPU architectures?? And Maybe I just like writing efficient code to do interesting things? > that you're going to be able to get an SNR with a higher level of > precision than 0.1 dB?? (if the hardware suggests that it can then > it's LYING to you) Not really. Absolute accuracy is not going to be that good of course. But the error measurements from which SNR is calculated do support precision of better than 0.1 dB. That precision does give you more power when fine tuning antenna position. Put another way, what advantage is there of less precision? > this is the basis for proposing 8.8 format over just sending it back > in 0.1dB increments. We have officially entered the realm of I've yet to see _any_ argument for using decimal fixed point. Just because binary fixed point isn't vastly superior to decimal doesn't make decimal better. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
