I'm writing for a very limited resource embedded processor. I have a struct that captures a time series of events, and I'd like to use the same graphing function against different values of different types. Something like (very stripped down; don't sweat uninitialized values, etc):
#define GRAPH_ONE 1
#define GRAPH_TWO 2
struct _event_t {
unsigned long timestamp;
int sensorOne;
float sensorTwo;
}
typedef struct _event_t event_t;
event_t[10] MyEvents;
void GraphSensor(byte graphType) {
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
// Get minimum value from series
if (MyEvents[i].?????) ...
}
}
How can I have my function operate on different members of the struct? I can see doing it with a ton of switch (graphType) statements, but that's pretty ugly. There could easily be 8 or 10 members of the struct. I could move all of those to a separate function and make every bit of data access call that function, always returning a float (which should be OK for my graph). Finally I could convert to C++ classes, which opens other means.
None of those feel right. Is there a better approach, preferably a very lightweight one?
You could wrap the accessor you need in a function, and pass that to the function that walks the array and aggregates the results. For example
float getSensor1(const event_t* t)
{
return t->sensorOne;
}
float getSensor2(const event_t* t)
{
return t->sensorTwo;
}
void GraphSensor(float (*accessor)(const event_t*)) {
// Get minimum value from series
float min_value = MAX_FLOAT;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
float x = accessor(MyEvents + i);
if (x < min_value)
min_value = x;
}
}
/* later on . . . */
GraphSensor(getSensor1);
GraphSensor(getsensor2);
You are basically decoupling the access of the data from the operation on it, and homogenizing it all to floats. The aggregation operation could also be encapsulated into a function, too. But that's getting pretty close to map-reduce. :)
You could change the struct to an array which uses perhaps all floats. In that way the data handling is completely homogeneous.
#define N_SENSORS 12
#define N_EVENTS 10
float MyEvents [N_EVENTS] [N_SENSORS];
void GraphSensor(byte graphType)
{
float min = 1e38;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < N_EVENTS; i++)
{
// Get minimum value from series
if (MyEvents[i][graphType] < min)
min = MyEvents[i][graphType];
}
}
Perhaps the timestamp could be there too in element zero maybe using spreadsheet conventions: integer part is days since 1970 or 1900 and fractional part is portion of the day (so noon = .5).
Related
Let me start by saying that I openly admit this is for a homework assignment, but what I am asking is not related to the purpose of the assignment, just something I don't understand in C. This is just a very small part of a large program.
So my issue is, I have a set of data that consists various data types as follows:
[16 bit number][16 but number][16 bit number][char[234]][128 bit number]
where each block represents a variable from elsewhere in the program.
I need to send that data 8bytes at a time into a function that accepts uint32_t[2] as an input. How do I convert my 234byte char array into uint32_t without losing the char values?
In other words, I need to be able to convert back from the uint32_t version to the original char array later on. I know a char is 1byte, and the value can also be represented as a number in relation to its ascii value, but not sure how to convert between the two since some letters have a 3 digit ascii value and others have 2.
I tried to use sprintf to grab 8byte blocks from the data set, and store that value in a uint32_t[2] variable. It works, but then I lose the original char array because I can't figure out way to go back/undo it.
I know there has to be a relatively simple way to do this, i'm just lacking enough skill in C to make it happen.
Your question is very confusing, but I am guessing you are preparing some data structure for encryption by a function that requires 8 bytes or 2 uint32_t's.
You can convert a char array to uint32_t as follows
#define NELEM 234
char a[NELEM];
uint64_t b[(NELEM+sizeof(uint64_t)-1)/sizeof(uint64_t)]; // this rounds up to nearest modulo 4
memcpy(b,a,NELEM);
for(i .. ) {
encryption_thing(b[i]);
}
or
If you need to change endianess or something, that is more complicated.
#include <stdint.h>
void f(uint32_t a[2]) {}
int main() {
char data[234]; /* GCC can explicitly align with this: __attribute__ ((aligned (8))) */
int i = 0;
int stride = 8;
for (; i < 234 - stride; i += stride) {
f((uint32_t*)&data[i]); }
return 0; }
I need to send that data 8bytes at a time into a function that accepts
uint32_t[2] as an input. How do I convert my 234byte char array into
uint32_t without losing the char values?
you could use a union for this
typedef union
{
unsigned char arr[128]; // use unsigned char
uint32_t uints[16]; // 128/8
} myvaluetype;
myvaluetype value;
memcpy(value.arr, your_array, sizeof(value.arr));
say the prototype that you want to feed 2 uint32_t at a time is something like
foo(uint32_t* p);
you can now send the data 8 bytes at the time by
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i += 2)
{
foo(myvaluetype.uints + i);
}
then use the same struct to convert back.
of course some care must be taken about padding/alignment you also don't mention if it is sent over a network etc so there are other factors to consider.
I use a struct of bit fields to access each colour channel in a pixel, the problem is that quite often I have code that applies in the same way to each channel, but because I cannot just iterate over the members of a struct in C I end up having 3 copies of the same code for each member, or more inconveniently have to use switch-case statements.
I figured it would be more elegant if I could use a macro so that I can access a member by providing a number, ideally a macro that would make .CHAN(i) become either .r, .g or .b depending on whether the integer variable i contains a 0, 1 or 2. Except I have no idea how one would make such a macro or even if that's possible.
A detail but each member is something like 12 bits, not 8 as one might expect, so I cannot just turn it into an array or have a union with a pointer. Also X-Macros won't do as I often need to do many things to each channel before doing the same to another channel, in other words the for loop for going through each member can contain a lot more than just one line.
EDIT: Here's some code, first the struct:
typedef struct
{
uint32_t b:12;
uint32_t g:12;
uint32_t r:12;
uint32_t a:12;
} lrgb_t;
Now an example of what my problem looks like in code:
for (ic=0; ic<3; ic++)
{
for (i=0; i<curvecount; i++)
{
curve[i].p0.x = (double) i;
curve[i].p3.x = (double) i+1.;
switch (ic) // this is what I'm trying to eliminate
{
case 0:
curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].r / 4095.;
curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].r / 4095.;
break;
case 1:
curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].g / 4095.;
curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].g / 4095.;
break;
case 2:
curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].b / 4095.;
curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].b / 4095.;
break;
}
// Ideally this would be replaced by something like this, CHAN() being an hypothetical macro
// curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].CHAN(ic) / 4095.;
// curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].CHAN(ic) / 4095.;
}
... // more stuff that ultimately results in a bunch of pixels being written, channel after channel
}
as pointed out in the comments, this doesn't really address the OP's problem because the members on his struct are bitfields that wouldn't align with an array. I'll keep the answer here though, in hopes it can still be useful to someone.
I think a union is what you want.
You can write your struct such as
union
{
struct
{
float r;
float g;
float b;
}rgb;
float channel[3];
} color;
This way the struct will be in the same place in memory as the float[3], and you can effectively access the same members as either a struct member or as an element in the array.
You might have to look up the exact syntax, but you get the idea.
One possibility might be to wrap the repeated code into a function, and then call it for each of the channels:
typedef struct {
int r:12;
int g:12;
int b:12;
} Pixel;
int inc(int val) {
return val + 1;
}
int main(void) {
Pixel p = {0, 0, 0};
p.r = inc(p.r);
p.g = inc(p.g);
p.b = inc(p.b);
return 0;
}
After reading the code that you added I made some changes to my suggested macro
#define CHAN(ic) \
(ic == 1) ? curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].r / 4095; curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].r / 4095; : \
(ic == 2) ? curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].g / 4095; curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].g / 4095; : \
curve[i].p0.y = pancol[i].b / 4095; curve[i].p3.y = pancol[i+1].b / 4095;
The macro CHAN(ic) will evaluate 'ic' in order to decided which member to manipulate. If 'ic' is 1 then the member '.r' will be manipulated if 'ic' is 2 then '.g' will be manipulated, and if 'ic' is neither 1 or 2 then '.b' will be manipulated because of this assumption you must make sure that 'ic' is properly set otherwise you could screw with the value of panco[i].b and pancol[i+1].b . You code should look something like the following but you will most likely need to tweak the macro a bit let me know if you have any questions.
//#define CHAN(ic) here
for (ic=0; ic<3; ic++)
{
for (i=0; i<curvecount; i++)
{
curve[i].p0.x = (double) i;
curve[i].p3.x = (double) i+1.;
CHAN(ic)
}
... // more stuff that ultimately results in a bunch of pixels being written, channel after channel
}
Also please note that my macro will do exactly the same thing as your switch case. The only difference is that it is defined in a macro the point I am trying to make is that the difference between the switch case and the macro is purely visual.
I'm still pretty new to using SSE and am trying to implement a modulo of 2*Pi for double-precision inputs of the order 1e8 (the result of which will be fed into some vectorised trig calculations).
My current attempt at the code is based around the idea that mod(x, 2*Pi) = x - floor(x/(2*Pi))*2*Pi and looks like:
#define _PD_CONST(Name, Val) \
static const double _pd_##Name[2] __attribute__((aligned(16))) = { Val, Val }
_PD_CONST(2Pi, 6.283185307179586); /* = 2*pi */
_PD_CONST(recip_2Pi, 0.159154943091895); /* = 1/(2*pi) */
void vec_mod_2pi(const double * vec, int Size, double * modAns)
{
__m128d sse_a, sse_b, sse_c;
int i;
int k = 0;
double t = 0;
unsigned int initial_mode;
initial_mode = _MM_GET_ROUNDING_MODE();
_MM_SET_ROUNDING_MODE(_MM_ROUND_DOWN);
for (i = 0; i < Size; i += 2)
{
sse_a = _mm_loadu_pd(vec+i);
sse_b = _mm_mul_pd( _mm_cvtepi32_pd( _mm_cvtpd_epi32( _mm_mul_pd(sse_a, *(__m128d*)_pd_recip_2Pi) ) ), *(__m128d*)_pd_2Pi);
sse_c = _mm_sub_pd(sse_a, sse_b);
_mm_storeu_pd(modAns+i,sse_c);
}
k = i-2;
for (i = 0; i < Size%2; i++)
{
t = (double)((int)(vec[k+i] * 0.159154943091895)) * 6.283185307179586;
modAns[k+i] = vec[k+i] - t;
}
_MM_SET_ROUNDING_MODE(initial_mode);
}
Unfortunately, this is currently returning a lot of NaN with a couple of answers of 1.128e119 as well (some what outside the range of 0 -> 2*Pi that I was aiming for!). I suspect that where I'm going wrong is in the double-to-int-to-double conversion that I'm trying to use to do the floor.
Can anyone suggest where I've gone wrong and how to improve it?
P.S. sorry about the format of that code, it's the first time I've posted a question on here and can't seem to get it to give me empty lines within the code block to make it readable.
If you want any kind of accuracy, the simple algorithm is terribly bad. For an accurate range reduction algorithm, see e.g. Ng et al., ARGUMENT REDUCTION FOR HUGE ARGUMENTS: Good to the Last Bit (now available via the Wayback Machine: 2012-12-24)
For large arguments Hayne-Panek algorithm is typically used. However, the Hayne-Panek paper is quite difficult to read, and I suggest to have a look at Chapter 11 in the Handbook of Floating-Point Arithmetic for a more accessible explanation.
i'm writing a code for a number on a led segement to decrease by 1 every five seconds
my actual code at the moment is this
FiveSecDelay+=1;
if (FiveSecDelay ==100)
{
count2--; //decrement count2
for (uint32_t x = 0; x < 4; x++) //split count to to individual digits
{
new_value[x] = count2 % 10;
count2 = count2 / 10;
}
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
Segment_Write(Digit[i],new_value[i]); assign value to segments
}
FiveSecDelay =0;
}
im using a schedular to call a function every milisecond, in theory this supposed to work as i used the same technique to assign a value to the segments,
what happens is that i have a starting value of 8, and it supposed to got 7,6,5,4 and so on till 0, but for some reason it goes from 8 to 42 and stays there
I had tried to fix it but have come up short.
Any help would be great
Thank you
Quick and dirty way:
while(true)
{
check();
sleep(5);
}
int values[1];
int check(void)
{
if (values[0] > 0)
values[0]--;
}
If you have access to the system time, you can store the initial time the call was made, and then every time you query its value, check against the system time to determine the correct adjusted value, and a little snippet to set the value, like such:
// initialize
int check = 142;
unsigned long long time = getMillis();
int get_value(void)
{
unsigned long long time_factor = ((getMillis() - time) / (unsigned long long) 5);
if (time_factor > (unsigned long long) check)
return 0;
else
return check - time_factor;
}
void set_value(int v)
{
check = v;
time = getMillis();
}
Note that I don't know off the top of my head how to get the system time in c (though I bet you'd need #include <time.h>) so I made up a function called getMillis() which returns the system time as an unsigned long long (should be a 64 bit unsigned integer). The implementation is up to the reader.
It's also worth mentioning that you will experience a wraparound error after about 600 million years.
void check() {
static int array[] = {142}; // why are you using an array here?
(*array)--;
}
int main() {
while(true)
{
check();
usleep(5000); // approximate
}
return 0;
}
Have check take a parameter which is the number. Then have a counter in the main loop of your program that starts at some value, and is decremented every time check is called.
I'm assuming that you are doing something more complex than what your current check function does because obviously it doesn't do anything in the provided form. If you provide more information, we would be able to give you a more thorough and applicable solution.
We are programming a ST269 microcontroller which has two IR distance sensors. To calibrate these sensors we made one table for each sensor with the distance we measured and the corresponding value we get from the ADC.
Now we want to use one function to approximate the values in between. So we defined two two-dimensional arrays (one for each sensor) as global variables. In our function we then want to copy the one array we want to work with to a working array and approximate our values.
So here's the code:
...
unsigned int ir_werte_re[][] = {
{8,553},
...
{83,133}
};
unsigned int ir_werte_li[][] = {
{8,566},
...
{83,147}
};
...
unsigned int geradenaproximation(unsigned int messwert, unsigned int seite)
{
unsigned int working_array[16][16];
unsigned int i = 0;
if (seite == 0) {
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(working_array); i++) {
working_array[i][0] = ir_werte_li[i][0];
i++;
}
}
else {
for (i = 0; i < sizeof(working_array); i++) {
working_array[i][0] = ir_werte_re[i][0];
i++;
}
}
i = 0;
unsigned int y1 = 0;
unsigned int x1 = 0;
...
}
This code is in a file called sensor.c. We didn't write anything about our global arrays in the sensor.h should we? The sensor.h of course is included in our main.c and there the function is called.
We also tried to copy the arrays via
memcpy(working_array, ir_werte_li, sizeof(working_array));
And in every way we do this we get a
syntax error near unsigned
in the line where we're declaring
unsigned int y1 = 0;
and I'm pretty sure that there is no syntax error in this line : )
The last time I spend coding in C is a few years away so I'm not sure if the way we try to do this is good. Perhaps we can solve this by using a pointer instead of really copying the array or something. So please help me out I'll appreciate your bits on this.
In C (pre-C99), all variable definitions must appear at the top of the current block scope.