Re: [hatari-devel] DSP bug found (and maybe solved)

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives ]


I've tested many programs tonight and didn't noticed any regression.

The fix seems OK to me.

Great. I love Audio Fun Machine, and I'm happy to have it working correctly now.


And also, thank you Eero for the moongame button C tips to launch the game.

Regards

Laurent




Le 15/04/2024 à 22:10, Laurent Sallafranque a écrit :
Hi,


Thanks Andreas. I prefer this 2nd patch.

I've commited it and changed the compatibiliy file too (but it didn't change the main hatari site compatibility list).

I'll do more tests tonight with programs I know that use modulo buffers.


Regards

Laurent


Le 15/04/2024 à 21:58, Andreas Grabher a écrit :
Am 15.04.2024 um 11:50 schrieb Andreas Grabher <andreas_g86@xxxxxxxxxx>:


Am 14.04.2024 um 23:48 schrieb Laurent Sallafranque <laurent.sallafranque@xxxxxxx>:

Hi all,


I've spent the last 2 weeks tracing Audio Fun Machine to find the bug when the equalizer is ON (sound becomes noisy).


I've isolated the bug : it's about Rn + Nn + Mn updating.
An example :
       move    #>0,r0                     ; R0 = 0
       movec    #$01,m0                ; modulo 2
       move    #$02,n0                   ; incrementor = 2

       move    #>1,a
       move    #>1,b
       move    a,x:(r0)+                 ; r0 = 1
       nop
       nop
       move    b,x:(r0)+                 ; r0 = 0  (because of the modulo)
       nop
       nop
       move    (r0)+n0                   ; R0 = 0 (should be 2)
       nop
       nop
       move    a,x:(r0)+                 ; R0 = 1 (should be 3)


I suggest the following fix in the function :
static void dsp_update_rn_modulo(uint32_t numreg, int16_t modifier)

Line 1694 :
replace
if (abs_modifier>modulo) {
by
if (abs_modifier>modulo-1) {


In line 1673, modulo is added +1 for buffer boundaries computing.
But I think modulo should be -1 when tested with modifier.

At least, Audio Fun Machine sound becomes good with this patch, but DSP programs should be tested for non regression.
I've tested 2 or 3 of them, but not all of them.

@eero, could you test my patch and tell me if AFM works well for you ?


Regards

Laurent

Great discovery! Obviously the special case where abs_modifier equals modulo was not handled. I think the more logical solution would be

if (abs_modifier>=modulo)

I was wrong with my first patch and I think the solution from Laurent is also wrong, because it does not correctly handle the case where M equals |Nn| but is not equal to 2^k.

I created a patch (appended). I think this is the cleanest way: It first checks for the case where |Nn| is not a multiple of 2^k. It then checks if Nn is greater than M which means unpredictable result else it does normal modulo operation. In the special case where |Nn| is a multiple of 2^k it jumps to the next buffer (this includes the case where P is 0 and makes this case a bit faster).

Special case is described in the data sheet of the 56001 DSP:
"If an offset, Nn, is used in the address calculations, the 16-bit absolute value, INnl, must be less than or equal to M for proper modulo addressing. If Nn>M, the result is data dependent and unpredictable, except for the special case where Nn = P x 2^k, a multiple of the block size where P is a positive integer. For this special case, when using the (Rn) + Nn addressing mode, the pointer, Rn, will jump linearly to the same relative address in a new buffer, which is P blocks forward in memory (see Figure 5-12). Similarly, for (Rn) - Nn, the pointer will jump P blocks backward in memory.“

I think the data sheet is not very clear because if |Nn| is equal to M there are two possible cases but only one is described.

Please verify my thoughts. I hope there is no mistake.







Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/