undefined | Better HN

0 pointstremon4y ago0 comments

and then failed to come up with the 'obvious' 1-cycle solution

That's unfair, as the commenters here are providing a software solution. The patent is about a hardware solution which involves two parallel adder circuits. It implements in hardware exactly what the software solution does, but you can't express it in software because there is no operand that expresses "implement this addition twice please". You'd have to express it as:

  avg = [x>>1 + y>>1, x>>1 + y>>1 + 1][x&y&1]

Which isn't 1-cycle either without the specialized adder.

0 comments

tremonOP4y ago

And I just realized the hardware solution is incredibly sub-optimal. If you were to design this in specialized hardware, you'd use a single (N+1)-bit adder and just discard the least significant bit in the output, not duplicate the entire adder tree in silicon.

adrian_b4y ago

There is no need for a specialized adder.

The patented expression is computable in an obvious way by a single ordinary adder and a single AND gate connected to the carry input of the adder, without any other devices (the shifts and the "& 1" are done by appropriate connections).

Any ordinary N-bit adder computes the sum of 3 input operands, 2 which are N-bit, and a third which is an 1-bit carry.