Hi Johannes, Hi xd, complex_to_arg uses GNU Radio's fast_atan2f function, which is an approximation [1]. Between the 255 values of the lookup table, it uses linear interpolation, hence your 0.4 error factor.
As Johannes said, that's not really surprising for a look up table-based approach. I do think using this approximation is justified, but I also think that the codebase it uses has been obsolete for a bit now: gr::fast_atan2 could be replaced by volk's volk_32fc_s32f_atan2_32f, which has been around since 2012, but hasn't seen any use in GNU Radio, as far as I can tell. Now, I went ahead and had a benchmark [2] which showed that gr::fast_atan2 is actually quite fast -- but that's only twice as fast as the standard been-around-forever libc implementation and the volk implementation (which, admittedly, also does a multiplication with 1.0, and by the way: the generic volk kernel (which does libc atan2 + multiplication) is exactly as fast as the SSE4 one on my machine), and everything is pretty much in the same range as C++ <complex>'s std::arg : For 2²⁵ complex numbers, of which at least half have small angles: 1: .fast: 1: 0.397261s wall, 0.370000s user + 0.020000s system = 0.390000s CPU (98.2%) 1: 1: .volk: 0.780515s wall, 0.760000s user + 0.020000s system = 0.780000s CPU (99.9%) 1: 1: .libc: 0.777738s wall, 0.760000s user + 0.020000s system = 0.780000s CPU (100.3%) 1: 1: .c++ complex arg: 0.815700s wall, 0.780000s user + 0.030000s system = 0.810000s CPU (99.3%) But: this is on an Intel i7. Things might look different on your average android phone or even worse, your raspberry Pi (so if you wanna test, [2] ). Conclusion: If you're after small angles, the current complex_to_arg's factor 2 speedup might not be what your after. That is probably not the case if you use complex_to_arg in an quadrature_demod inside an FM audio receiver running on an embedded device -- small angle errors don't make the least difference here. The question is, like it was with gr::random, whether we still prefer performance over preciseness, or if we excercise exactness. Also, I was pretty amazed how fast fast_atan2 really is – its dependence on branching suggests it's pretty hard to vectorize and optimize as a compiler. Best regards, Marcus [1] https://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/group__misc.html#ga6c1470346a3524989b7a8a3639aa79a7 [2] On 10.11.2015 10:45, Johannes Demel wrote: > Hi, > > Could you extend a test case for this block with Python? This might > reveal issues with the implementation more easily. Also, others might > benefit from it. > For your specific problem, I guess the GR block result is as close as > it gets for a LUT-based calculation. And it's not off by a lot but by > some 10^-x. > > Cheers > Johannes > > On 10.11.2015 10:29, w xd wrote: > > Hi all, > > > Thank you very much in advance. > > > I find the result of the block "complex to Arg" is same to the > > result in matlab most of the time,while sometimes the results is > > different from the result in matlab. > > > For example, a=1.646236600879293e+03 + 8.043715071772031e+00i I use > > the command atan2 or angle to calculate the result. It return > > 0.004886084452240. > > > While i calculate the result using the gnuradio. It return > > 0.002944485750049. > > > Can someone explain it? > > > The version of gnuradio:3.7.5. Best regards, xd > > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio > > mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
