Random/LFSR on P2

145791021

Comments

  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    I've started playing with your code Heater. There's something wrong with the bit shifting at the putchar() ...
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Hmm, is it my browser, Chrome, or the forums software mangling our "8"s in the code blocks?
  • evanh,
    There's something wrong with the bit shifting at the putchar()
    Unlikely. Looked good when I checked the output with hexdump. Except we can perhaps have a different byte ordering. Which dieharder would not care about.
    00000000  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 20 00 00 08 00 40 00  |......... ....@.|
    00000010  90 00 00 0c 10 20 04 00  91 20 22 08 18 2b 40 40  |..... ... "..+@@|
    00000020  00 e2 04 8c 05 12 e8 04  71 a0 c4 3a 09 10 ec 80  |........q..:....|
    00000030  a2 e2 03 19 b8 2e d8 34  73 2f 69 ec af 90 ac 6f  |.......4s/i....o|
    00000040  51 86 ac 75 b9 93 32 4d  d8 e0 af 32 9d fd d3 a5  |Q..u..2M...2....|
    00000050  16 ff 4d c6 30 24 23 52  93 76 ce 86 da ab 48 6c  |..M.0$#R.v....Hl|
    
  • Ha, that was unexpected. I'm not getting that at all ...
    0000:0000 | 01 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  01 40 00 00  10 00 80 00 | .........@......
    0000:0010 | 21 01 00 18  20 40 08 00  22 41 44 10  30 56 80 80 | !... @.."AD.0V..
    0000:0020 | 01 C4 09 18  0B 24 D0 09  E2 40 89 75  12 20 D8 01 | .Ä...$Ð.â@.u. Ø.
    0000:0030 | 44 C5 07 32  70 5D B0 69  E6 5E D2 D8  5F 21 59 DF | DÅ.2p]°iæ^ÒØ_!Yß
    0000:0040 | A2 0C 59 EB  72 27 65 9A  B1 C1 5F 65  3A FB A7 4B | ¢.Yër'e.±Á_e:û§K
    0000:0050 | 2C FE 9B 8C  61 48 46 A4  27 ED 9C 0D  B5 57 91 D8 | ,þ..aHF¤'í..µW.Ø
    
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Heater
    Heater. wrote: »
    Yes, but you are not using all 64 bits of the output, only the low 32.

    Here is my main code:
        while(1)
        {
            random64 = next();
            for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
                putchar(random64 >> (i * 8));
            }
        }
    

    Have a look at my comments again, I realized my mistake immediately and all comments/results after that are based on my fixed code!
    Ahle2 wrote: »
    Okay... I made a mistake as seen in my code above. Only passing 32 bits of the 64 to stdout. When I ran it again with all bits, it began failing misserable!

    Here's the output from Practrand
    PE 1 | ./RNG_test stdin
    RNG_test using PractRand version 0.93
    RNG = RNG_stdin, seed = 0xa4eaaac4
    test set = normal, folding = standard(unknown format)
    
    rng=RNG_stdin, seed=0xa4eaaac4
    length= 128 megabytes (2^27 bytes), time= 3.8 seconds
      Test Name                         Raw       Processed     Evaluation
      BCFN(2+0,13-3,T)                  R= +74.9  p =  3.0e-35    FAIL !!!       
      BCFN(2+1,13-3,T)                  R= +18.9  p =  9.6e-9    VERY SUSPICIOUS 
      DC6-9x1Bytes-1                    R= +1413  p =  6.3e-868   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      Gap-16:A                          R=+149.1  p =  1.3e-126   FAIL !!!!!     
      Gap-16:B                          R=+367.1  p =  6.1e-294   FAIL !!!!!!    
      FPF-14+6/16:(0,14-0)              R= +5478  p =  8e-5069    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:(1,14-0)              R= +2754  p =  5e-2548    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:(2,14-0)              R= +1357  p =  2e-1255    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:(3,14-1)              R=+967.8  p =  1.7e-857   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      FPF-14+6/16:(4,14-2)              R=+655.1  p =  1.0e-572   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      FPF-14+6/16:(5,14-2)              R=+254.4  p =  3.0e-222   FAIL !!!!!!    
      FPF-14+6/16:all                   R= +5306  p =  2e-4979    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:all2                  R=+9738850 p = 0           FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:cross                 R= +5198  p =  2e-4373    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      [Low1/8]Gap-16:B                  R=  +4.4  p =  1.0e-3   unusual          
      ...and 136 test result(s) without anomalies
    
    

    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Ahle2,

    I changed my code to do explicit casting:
    	const unsigned __int128 result = (unsigned __int128)s0 + (unsigned __int128)s1;
    ...
    	return (uint64_t)(result >> 1);
    
    So it is the C equivalent of your version.

    Still fails.

  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 19,071
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Ahle2,

    Yeah, we have been posting over each other. I saw your comments.

    It's miserable.

    What about trying pactrand on the original 64 bit output [63:0] ?

    My feeling is that we might as well use that bit zero. If it gets through pactrand surely we are good to go with 64 bits for all practical purposes on the P2 ?

    Where did you get pactrand from? Google does not seem to want to find it for me. Never mind. Helps if I spell it properly!
  • cgraceycgracey Posts: 7,623
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    So the top 64 bits from the 65-bit sum of s0+s1 do not pass the randomness test?

    I cant help but note here that, despite these overly-verbose typecasts in C++, there are all kinds of uncertainties and ambiguities about what the compilers are doing. Meanwhile, the forum software keeps substituting "08" for some idiotic emoji smiley face, further muddling up everyone's efforts. The Modern Way has almost ruined computing.
  • Heater. wrote: »
    Yes, the existing solution uses only the high 63 bits. Why? Because the bit zero is said to be not so statistically random looking as the rest.
    ...
    Unless I have made a mistake I think we may as well use the original 64 bit result.

    Using the original 64 bit result without discarding the LSB fails Practrand after just a few seconds!



    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • cgracey wrote: »
    I cant help but note here that, despite these overly-verbose typecasts in C++, there are all kinds of uncertainties and ambiguities about what the compilers are doing.
    According to the standard explicit casting is 100% certain to produce the intended results. There's a reason why most embedded coding is made using C/C++... You CAN be certain what the compiler does IF YOU know what you are doing. On the other hand C++ is a monster for beginners!
    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Oops, I wasn't doing the shift by one. Okay, got something looking better now. Straightened up the byte order while I was at it.

    Okay, the Dieharder 63 bits results fails quite a lot, while the 64 bit results are all good, just as Heater had observed. I don't understand because it doesn't match Johannes's earlier findings.

    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Maybe 63 bit results have to be fully concatenated to be valid for testing. Get rid of the dangling unused 64th bit ...
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • So...

    sum [63:0] fails?
    sum [63:1] passes?

    What about sum [64:1]?
  • Ahle2Ahle2 Posts: 906
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    evanh,

    I ran Dieharder with only the 8 LSB's ( (PRNG::getXoroshiro() >> 1) &0x7 ) as I figured that the randomness for all other bits would be equally good. Diharder reads 4 8 bits values and merge them into a 32 bit value internally. I am now running the same test with the 32 LSB of "PRNG::getXoroshiro() >> 1) & 0x1F"

    /Johannes
    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Then I will run with "PRNG::getXoroshiro() >> 32"
    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    cgracey wrote: »
    So...

    sum [63:0] fails?
    sum [63:1] passes?

    What about sum [64:1]?

    Other way round. But Johannes is saying that isn't good either. I've just had another shot at sum [64:1] and it's definitely the worst.

    I'm thinking sum [63:1] is presumably okay but the tests are tripping up on the fixed 0 value for the shifted bit 63.
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 19,071
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Chip,
    So the top 64 bits from the 65-bit sum of s0+s1 do not pass the randomness test?
    That is correct.

    On the whole the compilers are pretty clear. Well C anyway. C++ can always catch you out until you have learned all it's intricacies. Which can take a lifetime... Which is why most embedded projects limit the feature set of C++ you can use and have 200 page coding standards documents!

    Not sure what is up with the forum and "8)". A curse on emoji and Unicode I say. One sees them causing so much data corruption around the web.
    The Modern Way has almost ruined computing.
    Yep.


  • evanh wrote: »
    cgracey wrote: »
    So...

    sum [63:0] fails?
    sum [63:1] passes?

    What about sum [64:1]?

    Other way round. But Johannes is saying that isn't good either. I've just had another shot at sum [64:1] and it's definitely the worst.

    I'm thinking sum [63:1] is presumably okay but the tests are tripping up on the fixed 0 value for the shifted bit 63.

    It goes through Dieharder without trouble, but Practrand fails just after a few seconds!

    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 19,071
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    evanh,
    Okay, the Dieharder 63 bits results fails quite a lot,
    '
    Be sure you are packing those 63 bits so as to not be passing 64 bits with an MSB of zero. Or some such.


    There is a lot of shifting to be done to feed 63 bit chunks into dieharder.
  • The xoroshiro128+ document advised a sign test for extracting a random bit. That would mean just looking at sum [63], only, per iteration. We need as many bits as possible per iteration.
  • To be clear!!

    According to Practrand:

    sum [64:1] - Bad
    sum [63:1] - Good
    sum [63:0] - Bad

    According to Dieharder:

    sum [64:1] - Bad
    sum [63:1] - Good
    sum [63:0] - Good

    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Ahle2 wrote: »
    To be clear!!

    According to Practrand:

    sum [64:1] - Bad
    sum [63:1] - Good
    sum [63:0] - Bad

    According to Dieharder:

    sum [64:1] - Bad
    sum [63:1] - Good
    sum [63:0] - Good

    Super!

    That means there's agreement that [63:1] is good. Having 63 unique bits is almost as good as having 64. We're in good shape, then, as is.
  • It would be nice if the other guys could come to the same conclusion though! (running PractRand as well)
    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • Ahle2 wrote: »
    It would be nice if the other guys could come to the same conclusion though! (running PractRand as well)

    Yes, it would be nice.
  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Here's my source, from Heater's, to fully concatenate the 63-bit results:
    #include <limits.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdint.h>
    
    
    uint64_t s[2];
    
    
    static inline uint64_t rotl(uint64_t value, int shift) {
    	return (value << shift) | (value >> (sizeof(value) * CHAR_BIT - shift));
    }
    
    
    uint64_t next(void) {
    	uint64_t s0 = s[0];
    	uint64_t s1 = s[1];
    	uint64_t result = (s0 + s1) >> 1;
    //	uint64_t result = ((unsigned __int128)s0 + (unsigned __int128)s1);
    //	uint64_t result = (((unsigned __int128)s0 + (unsigned __int128)s1) >> 1);
    
    	s1 ^= s0;
    	s[0] = rotl(s0, 55) ^ s1 ^ (s1 << 14); // a, b
    	s[1] = rotl(s1, 36); // c
    
    //	return result;
    	return result & 0x7fffffffffffffff;
    }
    
    
    // Seed MUST not be all zero.
    #define SEED_0 ((uint64_t)0x1)
    #define SEED_1 ((uint64_t)0x0)
    
    int main(int argc, char* argv[])
    {
    	uint64_t random64[64];
    	int i, j;
    
    	// Seed the state array
    	s[0] = SEED_0;
    	s[1] = SEED_1;
    
    	// Print some randomness
    	while(1)
    	{
    		random64[0] = next();
    		for(i=1; i<64; i++)  {
    			random64[i] = next();
    			random64[i-1] = (random64[i-1] << i) | (random64[i] >> (63-i));  // bit 63 of next() is always zero.  Last reading is 100% merged, so random64[63] can be discarded.  
    		}
    
    //		printf("%016jx\n", (uintmax_t)(random64 >> 1));
    //		printf("%016jx\n", (uintmax_t)(random64));
    /*		for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
    			printf("%02x", (uint8_t)((random64 >> (i * 8 + 1)) & 0xff));
    		}
    		printf("\n");*/
    		for(i=0; i<63; i++)  {
    			for (j = 7; j >= 0; j--) {
    				putchar(random64[i] >> (j * 8 ));
    			}
    		}
    	}
    	return 0;
    }
    
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Johannes,
    I've compiled PractRand sources and got three binaries. What's the testing command string you are using?

    EDIT: Current command is: ./xoroshiro128plus-test | ./RNG_test stdin -a >practrand.out
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Hmm, it terminates the testing with the first "fail".

    I've had a single "fail" amongst a mass of "normal"s and a small number of "unusual"s on the simple sum [63:0]. It's not that bad, but I suppose we expected that.

    Admittedly sum [63:1] isn't "fail"ing at all and has even less "unusual"s.
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    I concur with Johannes. Chip, keep the Prop2 as you've got it now.

    PS: Wow! sum [64:1] fails in bulk in the first round! It's smallest output so I'll post it here:
    RNG_test using PractRand version 0.93
    RNG = RNG_stdin, seed = 0x956c7f6a
    test set = normal, folding = standard(unknown format)
    
    rng=RNG_stdin, seed=0x956c7f6a
    length= 64 megabytes (2^26 bytes), time= 2.5 seconds
      Test Name                         Raw       Processed     Evaluation
      BCFN(2+0,13-3,T)                  R= +29.8  p =  6.7e-14    FAIL           
      BCFN(2+1,13-3,T)                  R=  +0.8  p = 0.365     normal           
      BCFN(2+2,13-4,T)                  R=  -0.5  p = 0.563     normal           
      BCFN(2+3,13-4,T)                  R=  +1.7  p = 0.231     normal           
      BCFN(2+4,13-5,T)                  R=  -1.7  p = 0.756     normal           
      BCFN(2+5,13-5,T)                  R=  -1.0  p = 0.645     normal           
      BCFN(2+6,13-6,T)                  R=  -0.6  p = 0.561     normal           
      BCFN(2+7,13-6,T)                  R=  -0.9  p = 0.622     normal           
      BCFN(2+8,13-7,T)                  R=  +1.4  p = 0.250     normal           
      BCFN(2+9,13-8,T)                  R=  +2.9  p = 0.111     normal           
      BCFN(2+10,13-8,T)                 R=  -0.1  p = 0.453     normal           
      BCFN(2+11,13-9,T)                 R=  -0.3  p = 0.464     normal           
      BCFN(2+12,13-9,T)                 R=  +4.3  p = 0.048     normal           
      DC6-9x1Bytes-1                    R=+765.2  p =  2.1e-487   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      Gap-16:A                          R= +83.2  p =  3.8e-72    FAIL !!!!      
      Gap-16:B                          R=+220.5  p =  3.7e-196   FAIL !!!!!!    
      FPF-14+6/16:(0,14-0)              R= +2756  p =  3e-2550    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:(1,14-0)              R= +1379  p =  2e-1275    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:(2,14-1)              R=+973.4  p =  1.9e-862   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      FPF-14+6/16:(3,14-2)              R=+680.1  p =  1.3e-594   FAIL !!!!!!!   
      FPF-14+6/16:(4,14-2)              R=+318.3  p =  3.4e-278   FAIL !!!!!!    
      FPF-14+6/16:(5,14-3)              R=+181.6  p =  6.2e-159   FAIL !!!!!     
      FPF-14+6/16:(6,14-4)              R=  -0.2  p = 0.559     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(7,14-5)              R=  +0.7  p = 0.309     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(8,14-5)              R=  +0.8  p = 0.295     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(9,14-6)              R=  -2.4  p = 0.964     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(10,14-7)             R=  -0.0  p = 0.500     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(11,14-8)             R=  -1.3  p = 0.831     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(12,14-8)             R=  -1.6  p = 0.876     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(13,14-9)             R=  -2.3  p = 0.968     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(14,14-10)            R=  +0.6  p = 0.311     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(15,14-11)            R=  -1.4  p = 0.862     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:(16,14-11)            R=  -1.6  p = 0.910     normal           
      FPF-14+6/16:all                   R= +3043  p =  3e-2855    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:all2                  R=+2679396 p = 0           FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      FPF-14+6/16:cross                 R= +2680  p =  1e-2359    FAIL !!!!!!!!  
      BRank(12):128(4)                  R=  -0.2  p~= 0.500     normal           
      BRank(12):256(2)                  R=  -1.0  p~= 0.744     normal           
      BRank(12):384(1)                  R=  +0.4  p~= 0.366     normal           
      BRank(12):512(2)                  R=  -1.0  p~= 0.744     normal           
      BRank(12):768(1)                  R=  -0.7  p~= 0.689     normal           
      BRank(12):1K(1)                   R=  -0.7  p~= 0.689     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+0,13-5,T)          R=  +1.2  p = 0.292     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+1,13-5,T)          R=  +2.1  p = 0.189     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+2,13-6,T)          R=  +0.6  p = 0.367     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+3,13-6,T)          R=  +0.1  p = 0.443     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+4,13-6,T)          R=  -3.7  p = 0.961     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+5,13-7,T)          R=  +1.6  p = 0.228     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+6,13-8,T)          R=  -2.6  p = 0.905     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+7,13-8,T)          R=  -1.0  p = 0.620     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+8,13-9,T)          R=  -2.6  p = 0.942     normal           
      [Low1/8]BCFN(2+9,13-9,T)          R=  +0.2  p = 0.376     normal           
      [Low1/8]DC6-9x1Bytes-1            R=  +4.1  p = 0.045     normal           
      [Low1/8]Gap-16:A                  R=  +1.1  p = 0.393     normal           
      [Low1/8]Gap-16:B                  R=  +2.4  p = 0.046     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(0,14-2)      R=  +1.3  p = 0.182     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(1,14-2)      R=  -1.4  p = 0.848     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(2,14-3)      R=  -1.4  p = 0.847     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(3,14-4)      R=  +0.0  p = 0.498     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(4,14-5)      R=  +0.0  p = 0.484     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(5,14-5)      R=  -1.4  p = 0.832     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(6,14-6)      R=  +1.6  p = 0.132     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(7,14-7)      R=  -0.0  p = 0.490     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(8,14-8)      R=  +1.6  p = 0.132     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(9,14-8)      R=  +1.3  p = 0.179     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(10,14-9)     R=  +0.2  p = 0.412     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(11,14-10)    R=  -1.9  p = 0.944     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(12,14-11)    R=  -0.1  p = 0.453     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:(13,14-11)    R=  +2.7  p = 0.050     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:all           R=  -0.4  p = 0.635     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:all2          R=  -0.5  p = 0.637     normal           
      [Low1/8]FPF-14+6/16:cross         R=  +0.5  p = 0.283     normal           
      [Low1/8]BRank(12):128(2)          R=  -0.2  p~= 0.554     normal           
      [Low1/8]BRank(12):256(2)          R=  +1.6  p~= 0.168     normal           
      [Low1/8]BRank(12):384(1)          R=  -0.7  p~= 0.689     normal           
      [Low1/8]BRank(12):512(1)          R=  +0.4  p~= 0.366     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+0,13-5,T)         R=  -2.5  p = 0.857     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+1,13-5,T)         R=  +3.2  p = 0.101     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+2,13-6,T)         R=  +0.0  p = 0.462     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+3,13-6,T)         R=  +0.2  p = 0.437     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+4,13-6,T)         R=  +1.8  p = 0.214     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+5,13-7,T)         R=  -1.3  p = 0.679     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+6,13-8,T)         R=  -0.2  p = 0.462     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+7,13-8,T)         R=  +1.0  p = 0.278     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+8,13-9,T)         R=  -1.5  p = 0.727     normal           
      [Low4/32]BCFN(2+9,13-9,T)         R=  +0.9  p = 0.270     normal           
      [Low4/32]DC6-9x1Bytes-1           R=  -0.3  p = 0.708     normal           
      [Low4/32]Gap-16:A                 R=  +0.5  p = 0.546     normal           
      [Low4/32]Gap-16:B                 R=  +1.4  p = 0.160     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(0,14-2)     R=  +0.6  p = 0.342     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(1,14-2)     R=  -0.5  p = 0.628     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(2,14-3)     R=  +0.9  p = 0.266     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(3,14-4)     R=  +0.1  p = 0.481     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(4,14-5)     R=  -0.3  p = 0.574     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(5,14-5)     R=  -0.9  p = 0.744     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(6,14-6)     R=  +1.0  p = 0.233     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(7,14-7)     R=  +0.5  p = 0.360     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(8,14-8)     R=  +4.2  p =  4.8e-3   normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(9,14-8)     R=  -1.0  p = 0.748     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(10,14-9)    R=  -0.7  p = 0.661     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(11,14-10)   R=  -0.2  p = 0.524     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(12,14-11)   R=  -0.3  p = 0.526     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:(13,14-11)   R=  +0.8  p = 0.252     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:all          R=  +0.4  p = 0.413     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:all2         R=  -0.2  p = 0.495     normal           
      [Low4/32]FPF-14+6/16:cross        R=  +0.1  p = 0.428     normal           
      [Low4/32]BRank(12):128(2)         R=  +0.8  p~= 0.293     normal           
      [Low4/32]BRank(12):256(2)         R=  +0.6  p~= 0.322     normal           
      [Low4/32]BRank(12):384(1)         R=  -0.7  p~= 0.689     normal           
      [Low4/32]BRank(12):512(1)         R=  +1.8  p~= 0.146     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+0,13-6,T)         R=  +0.5  p = 0.389     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+1,13-6,T)         R=  +0.5  p = 0.383     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+2,13-7,T)         R=  +0.4  p = 0.384     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+3,13-7,T)         R=  -1.0  p = 0.634     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+4,13-8,T)         R=  -1.6  p = 0.748     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+5,13-8,T)         R=  +0.4  p = 0.372     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+6,13-9,T)         R=  -2.6  p = 0.934     normal           
      [Low1/32]BCFN(2+7,13-9,T)         R=  +1.0  p = 0.265     normal           
      [Low1/32]DC6-9x1Bytes-1           R=  -0.3  p = 0.683     normal           
      [Low1/32]Gap-16:A                 R=  +3.6  p = 0.013     normal           
      [Low1/32]Gap-16:B                 R=  -1.8  p = 0.893     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(0,14-3)     R=  -1.0  p = 0.771     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(1,14-4)     R=  +1.7  p = 0.118     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(2,14-5)     R=  +1.6  p = 0.127     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(3,14-5)     R=  +2.6  p = 0.040     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(4,14-6)     R=  +1.1  p = 0.216     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(5,14-7)     R=  +0.6  p = 0.320     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(6,14-8)     R=  -0.2  p = 0.546     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(7,14-8)     R=  +0.5  p = 0.337     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(8,14-9)     R=  +1.8  p = 0.106     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(9,14-10)    R=  -0.6  p = 0.629     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(10,14-11)   R=  +1.0  p = 0.210     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:(11,14-11)   R=  -1.2  p = 0.796     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:all          R=  +2.3  p = 0.062     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:all2         R=  -0.5  p = 0.644     normal           
      [Low1/32]FPF-14+6/16:cross        R=  +1.7  p = 0.059     normal           
      [Low1/32]BRank(12):128(2)         R=  -1.0  p~= 0.744     normal           
      [Low1/32]BRank(12):256(2)         R=  +0.8  p~= 0.293     normal           
      [Low1/32]BRank(12):384(1)         R=  -0.7  p~= 0.689     normal           
    
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
  • Being part of this P2 PRNG issue has renewed my interest in the P2. This has been so much fun! :)
    Could somebody give me a crash course (so I don't need to go through 1000's of forum pages) on how to download and run the latest P2 version on my DE2-115?
    SIDcog - The sound of the Commodore 64 in a single cog: Thread, OBEX, SIDcogMedlay.mp3
    AYcog - An emulation of the AY3-8910 / YM2149F PSG: Thread, OBEX
    SNEcog - An emulation of the SN76489 PSG(and variants): Thread, OBEX
    Propeller chiptune player: Thread
  • evanhevanh Posts: 3,856
    edited March 6 Vote Up0Vote Down
    All the best bits are here - http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/162298/prop2-fpga-files-updated-28-february-2017-version-16a/p1

    Third link in Chip's opening post is the dev files. There is image files for the DE2-115/DE0-Nano/BeMicro-A2/BeMicro-A9, I think you might need to use Quartus to load them. PX.exe is only for the Prop123 boards.
    "Since 1978, the cost of textbooks has risen 812%, outpacing even the cost of medical services and new housing."
Sign In or Register to comment.