Subject: Re: [boost] Request to contribute boost::FFT
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-03 12:13:22
On 03/06/13 16:55, Pekka Seppänen wrote:
> As it could be, that you don't know until you have your PoC running that
> what kind of embedded platform you do need for your implementation to be
> feasible. Do you need a DSP chip, 16bit or 32bit, floating or fixed
> point or does a multi purpose micro controller cut it.
> And that's the point where you'd like stick your custom complex number
> class in; That tells you at what kind of level (as in how many bits)
> precision it operates and what kind of operations it makes. This is a
> bit what Matlab's Fixed Point toolbox does (I have used it a bit) but
> still I find a bit lacky for real life problems.
> I'd say that in the end you'll write your FFT completely by hand as
> that's where all the processing time counts. But! You don't want to
> start by doing yet another FFT implementation that is off-by-one bug
> etc. ridden for the first few days.
> As I'm not the one doing the implementation, please do regard this as a
> comment coming from the back row - easier said than done, that is. Just
> liked to share some thoughts on FFT matters that I've encountered during
> the years.
You can only test if precision is sufficient if you use exactly the same
code in your prototype and in your optimized version though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk