Floating Point

[John]

@Yveaux said:

then let's call them float, for clarity

Agree

[hek]

Just pushed the float changes.

To free up some bits in header for the new fixed point types (and simplify things) I'm considering reducing the commandTypes to just 3 values (SET, REQ, INTERNAL) the rest (PRESENTATION, STREAM) will be moved to be INTERNAL messages.
I could make serial interface unaffected by this change. But I'd rather remove it there as well.

@Yveaux . Regarding remove the unsigned variant (e.g. ULONG). It is actually good to keep this. As there actually are some sensors reporting large numbers like meter-ticks which can be huge.

[Yveaux]

@hek Maybe not for 1.4, but you should consider removing a lot of the data from the header and leave only the routing info & message type in.
Depending on message type you then get a 'nested' header which tells you about the message-type specifics.
This also will help in the struggle to store data format types, for which you've now reserved 3 bits. They are always sent, also when there's no SET/GET data present in the message. Then you simply reserve e.g. a byte which will go a long way...

[hek]

@Yveaux said:

This also will help in the struggle to store data format types, for which you've now reserved 3 bits. They are always sent, also when there's no SET/GET data present in the message. Then you simply reserve e.g. a byte which will go a long way...

Darn... you are so right..

[Yveaux]

@hek Hey, its my job ;-)

[Zeph]

@Yveaux said:

@Zeph said:

(the decimals parameter is needed for this like for floats, as described earlier)

I don't see why the decimals parameter is needed. Currently it is used for the amount of decimals converted to textual presentation.

I was think of when packets are converted to the comma separated textual representation for the API.

Convert 25.7 degrees to fixed point at the node, then at the gateway convert the fixed point it to a text string, and you'll see what I mean. It's not for the scaling option.

IMHO scaling just complicates things too much -- you also need to exchange the scaling factor with the gateway.

There are tradeoffs either way. In the current architecture, to support scaling you'd need to at least tell the gateway the scaling factor as part of the one-time presentation configuration. (Alternately, the gateway could retrieve the scaling factor along with type and name from local configuration, rather than receiving all of those OTA, but that's another discussion)

Beyond that there's no need for new libraries, and it's easy to explain.

However, I understand that you are excited by the fixed point functionality (which could be useful for more than just OTA encoding). I don't want to discourage that exploration. I look forward to some examples of encoding at the node end, and decoding at the gateway end, for some sensors like the DHT-22 or 18B20.

This implies creating new C++ types, in this example "fix8p8", which is basically a int16_t with an implicit radix point in the middle.

Adding is simple. Multiply of fix8p8 is easy because you can use a long as temp before renormalizing, but multiply of fix16p16 gets trickier, of course.

My idea is to just wrap the new types in a class library, which allows for easy conversion and maths with these new fixedpt types.

Yes, that was what I was guessing. Go for it!

As part of this exercise we also have to modify these libraries which return their values in float-format, as it doesn't make sense to keeps floats in partly...

Agreed. It would be nice if we rarely needed to even link the floating point library in nodes. (And it would make an ATtiny based node more feasible someday).

[Zeph]

@hek said:

 MyMessage& set(double value, uint8_t decimals);

Shouldn't this be set(float, uint8_t). Wouldn't it be confusing to have double-argument when only sending 32-bit float?

I was quoting an excerpt of the current system. I would tend to agree with changing that to float, just for clarity of intent, even though they are the same in GCC for the AVR

[Yveaux]

@Zeph said:

to support scaling you'd need to at least tell the gateway the scaling factor as part of the one-time presentation configuration

This method (and the same holds for the decimals-parameter) seems attrictive, but has a few drawbacks:

• The presentation message currently has no 'guaranteed' delivery; we would need to change that as without this info the gateway cannot interpret the incoming data
• It also has to be sent to the sensor (actuator actually) nodes from the gateway when data goes the other way. No 'presentation' mechanism from gateway to sensor currently exists.
• It places an administration burden on the gateway, and possibly on actuators

Beyond that there's no need for new libraries, and it's easy to explain.

Possibly, but when you start mixing up values with different scaling factors or want to do (simple) maths on them the story changes completely...

[Yveaux]

I've been google'ing around looking for existing fixed point c++ libraries which fit the ATMega and tend to try out the following: https://code.google.com/p/libfixmath
It has regular updates, a unit test suite, impressive performance advantages (especially addition/substract, see https://code.google.com/p/libfixmath/wiki/Benchmarks), has been tested on ATMega and uses an MIT license.
It only supports 16.16, but other derivates like 8.8 seems doable.

Rolling my own from start is too much work for me, as implementation is tricky at some points (unit tests are a requirement IMHO)

Anyone has a better suggestion?

[hek]

@Yveaux

First impression: looks good!

[John]

@hek

Just pushed the float changes.

Just used the updated lib. I Can confirm the floats.

[Yveaux]

I 'ported' libfixmath to the Arduino (see https://github.com/Yveaux/Arduino_fixpt)
Ran into a lot of internal compiler error issues and had to convert the unittests to C++ variants (no need to test C-implementation only) which revealed some issues in the C++ wrapper.

Anyway, stuff is running now and I have some preliminary benchmark results.
I create a benchmark sketch which runs a number of multiplications/divisions/additions/subtractions/sqrt.

Code size results:

Bare (no float/fix16)    450
double                   2514
fix16                    2956

So code size slightly increases with fixed point calculations.

Calculation performance results:

with overflow detection and rounding:

Op      double	fixpt      speed improvement fixpt over double
Mult    870448    1708304	50.95%
Div     2303348   2986484	77.13%
Add     858280	296760     289.22%
Sub     858108	296644     289.27%
Sqrt    13164     15444      85.24%

without overflow detection and rounding (FIXMATH_NO_OVERFLOW & FIXMATH_NO_ROUNDING defined)

Op      double	fixpt	  speed improvement fixpt over double
Mult    870452    1699392	51.22%
Div     2303348   4794636    48.04%
Add     858280	82568	  1039.48%
Sub     858108	72776	  1179.11%
Sqrt    13168     15528	  84.80%

So additions & subtractions are significantly faster using Fix16 (we can probably live without overflow detection & rounding) and mul/div/sqrt are slower...

First conclusion: we don't gain in flash code space and don't gain (on average) in code execution speed. Maybe very specific applications can benefit from Fix16 implementation on AVR, but I seriously doubt if it's worth all the effort....

Seems like the AVR floating point library is very efficient, both in code size and execution speed.

Please review my code as I might be missing something...

[hek]

@Yveaux

Ok, good investigation! As you say. It might not be worth it with this small gain.

[Yveaux]

@hek I implemented a basic version of the 8.8 fixed point version of the library.
It doesn't pass the unittests completely yet, but here are the first results (sqrt not implemented yet):

Code size results:

Bare (no float/fix8)    450
double                  1214
fix16                   2062

So, again code size slightly increases with fixed point calculations.

with overflow detection and rounding:

Op      double	fixpt	speed improvement fixpt over double
Mult    840016	291008	288.66%
Div     2240552   812044	275.92%
Add     792564	133344	594.38%
Sub     801984	136676	586.78%

without overflow detection and rounding (FIXMATH_NO_OVERFLOW & FIXMATH_NO_ROUNDING defined)

Op      double	fixpt	speed improvement fixpt over double
Mult    840012	312440	268.86%
Div     2240548   790992	283.26%
Add     792564	56204	1410.16%
Sub     801972	52960	1514.30%

This is a very nice speed increase in all cases, especially when ignoring overflow detection and rounding.

Conclusion: Using 8.8 fixed point can definately bring the calculation time and therefore power consumption down! The use-case for 8.8 values is however limited, but for e.g. a temperature or humidity sensors with limited range & accuracy it seems usable.
Using 16.16 fixed point values has no clear advantage over using floating point values.

[hek]

@Yveaux

Ok, so 8.8 might serve a purpose then...

[Yveaux]

@hek Yep.
So, what shall I do? Invest some more time and get the 8.8 in (and modify some MySensors examples/libraries), or shall I park it for possible future usage?

[hek]

@Yveaux

Maybe we could park this for now (if you don't have an super urge to get it in to 1.4). We can all see the benefits and have it in the pipe for future versions.

[Yveaux]

@hek Ok, agree. Doesn't bring enough right now to justify the effort.

[Zeph]

Too bad the 16p16 is so slow and large, cool that 8p8 is better.
I suspect that either could be far faster if done in assembly, as floating point must be.

@Yveaux - can you share the test program you used?

---

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are two problem domains here.

1. Calculations using non-integer values as operands and results (plus/minus/divide/multiply/sqrt).

2. Representing non-integer values over a network, and converting between this representation and the textual display used by humans (and whatever format is used by sensors).

Fixed point can be great for the first domain, although in this case the C/C++ implementation has some tradeoffs in size and speed compared to the compiler supported floating point.

But fixed point math is not as well targeted at the second domain. For a sensor value like 29.7 degrees, fixed point has an inexact and sometimes cumbersome representation. To see what I mean, follow the whole chain of converting a DHT-22 value into fixed point for OTA transport, and then into a comma separated string representation for consumption by a home automation interface (and display to a user). The time and library size will be dominated not by basic arithmetic operations among fixed point values, but by the conversions into and out of that format. The DHT-22 value can be relatively efficiently converted to a 2 byte integer 297 and a one byte scaling factor 1; and those can be converted to the string "297" and then "29.7" without a large library.

This is NOT to disparage fixed point math where it works well.

[Yveaux]

@Zeph said:

can you share the test program you used?

You can find it at https://github.com/Yveaux/Arduino_fixpt