Re: ****tability: Harmony between PC and microcontroller

On May 7, 9:01 pm, Flash Gordon <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bart van Ingen Schenau wrote, On 07/05/08 14:05:
>
> > This is where your reasoning starts to break down.
> > A small, handheld device is likely to be using an ARM-based processor.
> > These processors are nowadays almost universally 32-bitters. (A really
> > old ARM processof might be 16 bit).
> > Therefore, the difference between using 'int' and 'uint_fast8_t' is
> > expected to be zero.
>
> That does not show that uint_fast8_t is wrong.

But is also does not show that 'int' is wrong. That is my whole point.

<snip>
> An algorithm that you might want running on either a small embedded
> processor or a high powered graphics workstation is one to work out the
> optimum brightness/contrast setting for an image based on some
> statistics. I know you might want it on a small processor because I had
> to implement it on one and then later ****t it to another smaller
> processor (in both cases HW collected the statistics, I only had to
> process them in real time), and the use on a high powered graphics
> workstation should be obvious. The same can apply to some other image
> processing algorithms, so it does happen.

Yes, it does happen.
But do you use identical implementations of the algorithm for both the
low-powered and  the high-powered device, or do you use different
implementations that make the best use of the capabilities of the
processor?

When implementing an algorithm for a high-powered architecture, do you
take it into account that the same algorithm might one day be useful
on a low-powered device (possibly without efficient floating point
sup****t)? Or do you do it only if you already know that the code will
be ****ted to such a device?

My point is that sup****ting low-powered devices takes a lot more than
just selecting the right integer types.

Bart v Ingen Schenau
> --
> Flash Gordon