Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library

Subject: Re: [boost] [fixed_point] Request for interest in a binary fixed point library
From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-11 19:34:30

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

> Le 12/04/12 00:25, Neal Becker a écrit :
>> Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>>
>>> Le 11/04/12 14:37, Neal Becker a écrit :
>> ...
>>>> * fixed point<->   flt should be provided.  fixed.as_double() for example.
>>> Should the
>>>
>>> fixed point ->   flt conversion take care of the rounding policy?
>>>
>> In my prototype code, every time a right shift is used, rounding policy is
>> applied.
>>
>> rounding policy is a template parameter, with one default (the only one I
>> care about).
>>
>> The default is,
>> template<typename base_type=int>
>> struct rnd {
>>    static base_type apply (base_type x, int frac_bits) {
>>      return ((x>>  (frac_bits-1)) + 1)>>  1;
>>    }
>> };
>>
>> To shift right by 'frac_bits' places, with rounding, we shift right 1 less
>> place, add 1, then shift 1 more place.  When followed by saturation, this is
>> the most common rounding operation I use for 2's complement hardware.
> I want the library to avoid myself to apply these explicit operations. I
> don't  want to see on my code a shift to apply a round. IMO rounding
> should be applied when the resolution decreases during a conversion and
> the shift must depend on the difference and the rounding policy.
>>>> Also,
>>>> fixed (double, integer_bits, frac_bits) constructor, or something like it.
>>> Could you be more precise, please?
>> I want to be able to construct a fixed from a float, specifying the number of
>> integer and fractional bits (or equivalent).
>>
>>
> I don't understand. If the fixed_point type conveys the number of
> integer and fractional bits, why do you want to give them as parameters
> of the constructor?
> 
Sorry for the confusion: my comment was about run-time specified fixed point 
type.  If using compile-time specification of integer and fractional bits, then 
you're correct - no need for those constructor parameters.