• Locked Locked
  • Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 119 subscribers
  • Views 15488 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

How to efficiently sum 4 x 8bit integers with ARM or NEON

Shervin Emami
Note: This was originally posted on 17th September 2010 at http://forums.arm.com

Hi,

I am trying to write an ASM function to shrink an 8-bit greyscale image by 4, so I need to get the sum of 4 bytes very quickly. From what I have read, NEON needs atleast 32-bit integers and VFP is for floats, so it looks like I should just stick with ARM (or Thumb-2) instructions.

But I'm just a beginner so I'm wondering if there is a more efficient method of summing 4 consecutive bytes than convert each byte to a 32bit int and then sum them (and then shift right to get the average).

Its for a Cortex-A8 (ARMv7-A), and the data is aligned to 32 bytes or whatever I want.

Cheers,
Shervin Emami
[url="http://www.shervinemami.co.cc/"]http://www.shervinemami.co.cc/[/url]
Parents
  • Note: This was originally posted on 27th September 2010 at http://forums.arm.com

    Actually I just used VPADDL's instead of VPADAL, so your code should run even faster than myne :-) But there is one other important difference: My code doesn't specify the data alignment (such as @64 and @128), because I'm using the default assembler in XCode (GCC4.2 -assembler-as-cpp), and I can't figure out how to specify the NEON data alignment. Maybe I should be using NASM or something instead of GCC to assemble my code...

    And one question about your code: You specify @128 alignment for 2 of your instructions and @64 for the other 2 loads & store. The timing diagram says that @64 is the max alignment it can take advantage of in VLD1.8, so is there a reason you wrote @128 for some of your instructions and not others?
Reply
  • Note: This was originally posted on 27th September 2010 at http://forums.arm.com

    Actually I just used VPADDL's instead of VPADAL, so your code should run even faster than myne :-) But there is one other important difference: My code doesn't specify the data alignment (such as @64 and @128), because I'm using the default assembler in XCode (GCC4.2 -assembler-as-cpp), and I can't figure out how to specify the NEON data alignment. Maybe I should be using NASM or something instead of GCC to assemble my code...

    And one question about your code: You specify @128 alignment for 2 of your instructions and @64 for the other 2 loads & store. The timing diagram says that @64 is the max alignment it can take advantage of in VLD1.8, so is there a reason you wrote @128 for some of your instructions and not others?
Children
No data