+fpm

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Client/ThirdParty/fpm/docs/performance.md b/Client/ThirdParty/fpm/docs/performance.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4b0b2f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Client/ThirdParty/fpm/docs/performance.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Performance
+
+The image below shows the approximate performance of:
+* `fpm` (the `Q16.16` type)
+* [libfixmath](https://github.com/PetteriAimonen/libfixmath) (`fix16`), an alternative C library (see [notes](#notes)).
+* [Compositional Numeric Library](https://github.com/johnmcfarlane/cnl) (`CNL`), an experimental library that is being developed in C++'s [SG14](https://github.com/WG21-SG14/SG14).
+* native FPU operations (`float` and `double`).
+
+The graph below plots the average number of nanoseconds a single operation takes: lower is better. The data was collected with [Google Benchmark](https://github.com/google/benchmark) on an Intel Core i7-5820K, 3.3GHz.
+
+![](http://mikelankampgithub.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/fpm/performance.png)
+
+The results show the following:
+* Compared to `libfixmath`, the performance of `fpm` is at least as good, except for `exp`, where it's considerably slower.
+* Compared to CNL, `fpm` only matches the performance for `sqrt`. However, CNL does not support the majority of benchmarked functions.
+* Compared to native single-precision floating-point operations, `fpm` is slower by up to an order of magnitude for most functions, except for the basic `add`, `sub` and several power or trigonometry functions, where it is faster.
+
+## Notes
+
+For a fair comparison, `libfixmath` was compiled with `FIXMATH_NO_CACHE`.
+It should also have been compiled with `FIXMATH_NO_OVERFLOW` (since `fpm` does not detect overflow), but `libfixmath` failed to compile with that option.