Since many of the Project Euler problems require you to do a divisibility check for quite a number of times, I've been trying to figure out the fastest way to perform this task in ZX81 BASIC.
So far I've compared (N/D) to INT(N/D) to check, whether N is dividable by D or not.
I have been thinking about doing the test in Z80 machine code, I haven't yet figured out how to use the variables in the BASIC in the machine code.
How can it be achieved?
You can do this very fast in machine code by subtracting repeatedly. Basically you have a procedure like:
set accumulator to N
subtract D
if carry flag is set then it is not divisible
if zero flag is set then it is divisible
otherwise repeat subtraction until one of the above occurs
The 8 bit version would be something like:
DIVISIBLE_TEST:
LD B,10
LD A,100
DIVISIBLE_TEST_LOOP:
SUB B
JR C, $END_DIVISIBLE_TEST
JR Z, $END_DIVISIBLE_TEST
JR $DIVISIBLE_TEST_LOOP
END_DIVISIBLE_TEST:
LD B,A
LD C,0
RET
Now, you can call from basic using USR. What USR returns is whatever's in the BC register pair, so you would probably want to do something like:
REM poke the memory addresses with the operands to load the registers
POKE X+1, D
POKE X+3, N
LET r = USR X
IF r = 0 THEN GOTO isdivisible
IF r <> 0 THEN GOTO isnotdivisible
This is an introduction I wrote to Z80 which should help you figure this out. This will explain the flags if you're not familiar with them.
There's a load more links to good Z80 stuff from the main site although it is Spectrum rather than ZX81 focused.
A 16 bit version would be quite similar but using register pair operations. If you need to go beyond 16 bits it would get a bit more convoluted.
How you load this is up to you - but the traditional method is using DATA statements and POKEs. You may prefer to have an assembler figure out the machine code for you though!
Your existing solution may be good enough. Only replace it with something faster if you find it to be a bottleneck in profiling.
(Said with a straight face, of course.)
And anyway, on the ZX81 you can just switch to FAST mode.
Don't know if RANDOMIZE USR is available in ZX81 but I think it can be used to call routines in assembly. To pass arguments you might need to use POKE to set some fixed memory locations before executing RANDOMIZE USR.
I remember to find a list of routines implemented in the ROM to support the ZX Basic. I'm sure there are a few to perform floating operation.
An alternative to floating point is to use fixed point math. It's a lot faster in these kind of situations where there is no math coprocessor.
You also might find more information in Sinclair User issues. They published some articles related to programming in the ZX Spectrum
You should place the values in some pre-known memory locations, first. Then use the same locations from within Z80 assembler. There is no parameter passing between the two.
This is based on what I (still) remember of ZX Spectrum 48. Good luck, but you might consider upgrading your hw. ;/
The problem with Z80 machine code is that it has no floating point ops (and no integer divide or multiply, for that matter). Implementing your own FP library in Z80 assembler is not trivial. Of course, you can use the built-in BASIC routines, but then you may as well just stick with BASIC.
Related
For fun, I'm writing a bignum library in Rust. My goal (as with most bignum libraries) is to make it as efficient as I can. I'd like it to be efficient even on unusual architectures.
It seems intuitive to me that a CPU will perform arithmetic faster on integers with the native number of bits for the architecture (i.e., u64 for 64-bit machines, u16 for 16-bit machines, etc.) As such, since I want to create a library that is efficient on all architectures, I need to take the target architecture's native integer size into account. The obvious way to do this would be to use the cfg attribute target_pointer_width. For instance, to define the smallest type which will always be able to hold more than the maximum native int size:
#[cfg(target_pointer_width = "16")]
type LargeInt = u32;
#[cfg(target_pointer_width = "32")]
type LargeInt = u64;
#[cfg(target_pointer_width = "64")]
type LargeInt = u128;
However, while looking into this, I came across this comment. It gives an example of an architecture where the native int size is different from the pointer width. Thus, my solution will not work for all architectures. Another potential solution would be to write a build script which codegens a small module which defines LargeInt based on the size of a usize (which we can acquire like so: std::mem::size_of::<usize>().) However, this has the same problem as above, since usize is based on the pointer width as well. A final obvious solution is to simply keep a map of native int sizes for each architecture. However, this solution is inelegant and doesn't scale well, so I'd like to avoid it.
So, my questions: is there a way to find the target's native int size, preferably before compilation, in order to reduce runtime overhead? Is this effort even worth it? That is, is there likely to be a significant difference between using the native int size as opposed to the pointer width?
It's generally hard (or impossible) to get compilers to emit optimal code for BigNum stuff, that's why https://gmplib.org/ has its low level primitive functions (mpn_... docs) hand-written in assembly for various target architectures with tuning for different micro-architecture, e.g. https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp/file/tip/mpn/x86_64/core2/mul_basecase.asm for the general case of multi-limb * multi-limb numbers. And https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp/file/tip/mpn/x86_64/coreisbr/aors_n.asm for mpn_add_n and mpn_sub_n (Add OR Sub = aors), tuned for SandyBridge-family which doesn't have partial-flag stalls so it can loop with dec/jnz.
Understanding what kind of asm is optimal may be helpful when writing code in a higher level language. Although in practice you can't even get close to that so it sometimes makes sense to use a different technique, like only using values up to 2^30 in 32-bit integers (like CPython does internally, getting the carry-out via a right shift, see the section about Python in this). In Rust you do have access to add_overflow to get the carry-out, but using it is still hard.
For practical use, writing Rust bindings for GMP is probably your best bet, unless that already exists.
Using the largest chunks possible is very good; on all current CPUs, add reg64, reg64 has the same throughput and latency as add reg32, reg32 or reg8. So you get twice as much work done per unit. And carry propagation through 64 bits of result in 1 cycle of latency.
(There are alternate ways to store BigInteger data that can make SIMD useful; #Mysticial explains in Can long integer routines benefit from SSE?. e.g. 30 value bits per 32-bit int, allowing you to defer normalization until after a few addition steps. But every use of such numbers has to be aware of these issues so it's not an easy drop-in replacement.)
In Rust, you probably want to just use u64 regardless of the target, unless you really care about small-number (single-limb) performance on 32-bit targets. Let the compiler build u64 operations for you out of add / adc (add with carry).
The only thing that might need to be ISA-specific is if u128 is not available on some targets. You want to use 64 * 64 => 128-bit full multiply as your building block for multiplication; if the compiler can do that for you with u128 then that's great, especially if it inlines efficiently.
See also discussion in comments under the question.
One stumbling block for getting compilers to emit efficient BigInt addition loops (even inside the body of one unrolled loop) is writing an add that takes a carry input and produces a carry output. Note that x += 0xff..ff + carry=1 needs to produce a carry out even though 0xff..ff + 1 wraps to zero. So in C or Rust, x += y + carry has to check for carry out in both the y+carry and the x+= parts.
It's really hard (probably impossible) to convince compiler back-ends like LLVM to emit a chain of adc instructions. An add/adc is doable when you don't need the carry-out from adc. Or probably if the compiler is doing it for you for u128.overflowing_add
Often compilers will turn the carry flag into a 0 / 1 in a register instead of using adc. You can hopefully avoid that for at least pairs of u64 in addition by combining the input u64 values to u128 for u128.overflowing_add. That will hopefully not cost any asm instructions because a u128 already has to be stored across two separate 64-bit registers, just like two separate u64 values.
So combining up to u128 could just be a local optimization for a function that adds arrays of u64 elements, to get the compiler to suck less.
In my library ibig what I do is:
Select architecture-specific size based on target_arch.
If I don't have a value for an architecture, select 16, 32 or 64 based on target_pointer_width.
If target_pointer_width is not one of these values, use 64.
The problem is that I didn't learned yet adders or VHDL (which a lot of people are telling me to use them) but all I have is 16-to-1 MUXs.
Should I link each MUX with the other from the select input? (Knowing that I have 4 inputs and 4 outputs obviously)
P.S: I am new to this kind of stuff and I am having a hard time to solve this.
Thank you in advance.
Converting binary to Gray code is pretty easy. In C it's just gray = bin ^ (bin>>1). You need on XOR gate for each bit except for the highest one.
There's a nice schematic over here: https://www.electrical4u.com/binary-to-gray-code-converter-and-grey-to-binary-code-converter/
You can make an XOR easily with a 4-to-1 MUX. You can, of course, make one with a 16-to-1 MUX too, by tying two of the inputs to ground, but it's a big waste of gates.
I was reviewing some code from a library for Arduino and saw the following if statement in the main loop:
draw_state++;
if ( draw_state >= 14*8 )
draw_state = 0;
draw_state is a uint8_t.
Why is 14*8 written here instead of 112? I initially thought this was done to save space, as 14 and 8 can both be represented by a single byte, but then so can 112.
I can't see why a compiler wouldn't optimize this to 112, since otherwise it would mean a multiplication has to be done every iteration instead of the lookup of a value. This looks to me like there is some form of memory and processing tradeoff.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to why this was done?
Note: I had a hard time coming up with a clear title, so suggestions are welcome.
Probably to explicitly show where the number 112 came from. For example, it could be number of bits in 14 bytes (but of course I don't know the context of the code, so I could be wrong). It would then be more obvious to humans where the value came from, than wiriting just 112.
And as you pointed out, the compiler will probably optimize it, so there will be no multiplication in the machine code.
So I'm trying to teach myself Haskell. I am currently on the 11th chapter of Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and am doing the 99 Haskell Problems as well as the Project Euler Problems.
Things are going alright, but I find myself constantly doing something whenever I need to keep track of "variables". I just create another function that accepts those "variables" as parameters and recursively feed it different values depending on the situation. To illustrate with an example, here's my solution to Problem 7 of Project Euler, Find the 10001st prime:
answer :: Integer
answer = nthPrime 10001
nthPrime :: Integer -> Integer
nthPrime n
| n < 1 = -1
| otherwise = nthPrime' n 1 2 []
nthPrime' :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [Integer] -> Integer
nthPrime' n currentIndex possiblePrime previousPrimes
| isFactorOfAnyInThisList possiblePrime previousPrimes = nthPrime' n currentIndex theNextPossiblePrime previousPrimes
| otherwise =
if currentIndex == n
then possiblePrime
else nthPrime' n currentIndexPlusOne theNextPossiblePrime previousPrimesPlusCurrentPrime
where currentIndexPlusOne = currentIndex + 1
theNextPossiblePrime = nextPossiblePrime possiblePrime
previousPrimesPlusCurrentPrime = possiblePrime : previousPrimes
I think you get the idea. Let's also just ignore the fact that this solution can be made to be more efficient, I'm aware of this.
So my question is kind of a two-part question. First, am I going about Haskell all wrong? Am I stuck in the imperative programming mindset and not embracing Haskell as I should? And if so, as I feel I am, how do avoid this? Is there a book or source you can point me to that might help me think more Haskell-like?
Your help is much appreciated,
-Asaf
Am I stuck in the imperative programming mindset and not embracing
Haskell as I should?
You are not stuck, at least I don't hope so. What you experience is absolutely normal. While you were working with imperative languages you learned (maybe without knowing) to see programming problems from a very specific perspective - namely in terms of the van Neumann machine.
If you have the problem of, say, making a list that contains some sequence of numbers (lets say we want the first 1000 even numbers), you immediately think of: a linked list implementation (perhaps from the standard library of your programming language), a loop and a variable that you'd set to a starting value and then you would loop for a while, updating the variable by adding 2 and putting it to the end of the list.
See how you mostly think to serve the machine? Memory locations, loops, etc.!
In imperative programming, one thinks about how to manipulate certain memory cells in a certain order to arrive at the solution all the time. (This is, btw, one reason why beginners find learning (imperative) programming hard. Non programmers are simply not used to solve problems by reducing it to a sequence of memory operations. Why should they? But once you've learned that, you have the power - in the imperative world. For functional programming you need to unlearn that.)
In functional programming, and especially in Haskell, you merely state the construction law of the list. Because a list is a recursive data structure, this law is of course also recursive. In our case, we could, for example say the following:
constructStartingWith n = n : constructStartingWith (n+2)
And almost done! To arrive at our final list we only have to say where to start and how many we want:
result = take 1000 (constructStartingWith 0)
Note that a more general version of constructStartingWith is available in the library, it is called iterate and it takes not only the starting value but also the function that makes the next list element from the current one:
iterate f n = n : iterate f (f n)
constructStartingWith = iterate (2+) -- defined in terms of iterate
Another approach is to assume that we had another list our list could be made from easily. For example, if we had the list of the first n integers we could make it easily into the list of even integers by multiplying each element with 2. Now, the list of the first 1000 (non-negative) integers in Haskell is simply
[0..999]
And there is a function map that transforms lists by applying a given function to each argument. The function we want is to double the elements:
double n = 2*n
Hence:
result = map double [0..999]
Later you'll learn more shortcuts. For example, we don't need to define double, but can use a section: (2*) or we could write our list directly as a sequence [0,2..1998]
But not knowing these tricks yet should not make you feel bad! The main challenge you are facing now is to develop a mentality where you see that the problem of constructing the list of the first 1000 even numbers is a two staged one: a) define how the list of all even numbers looks like and b) take a certain portion of that list. Once you start thinking that way you're done even if you still use hand written versions of iterate and take.
Back to the Euler problem: Here we can use the top down method (and a few basic list manipulation functions one should indeed know about: head, drop, filter, any). First, if we had the list of primes already, we can just drop the first 1000 and take the head of the rest to get the 1001th one:
result = head (drop 1000 primes)
We know that after dropping any number of elements form an infinite list, there will still remain a nonempty list to pick the head from, hence, the use of head is justified here. When you're unsure if there are more than 1000 primes, you should write something like:
result = case drop 1000 primes of
[] -> error "The ancient greeks were wrong! There are less than 1001 primes!"
(r:_) -> r
Now for the hard part. Not knowing how to proceed, we could write some pseudo code:
primes = 2 : {-an infinite list of numbers that are prime-}
We know for sure that 2 is the first prime, the base case, so to speak, thus we can write it down. The unfilled part gives us something to think about. For example, the list should start at some value that is greater 2 for obvious reason. Hence, refined:
primes = 2 : {- something like [3..] but only the ones that are prime -}
Now, this is the point where there emerges a pattern that one needs to learn to recognize. This is surely a list filtered by a predicate, namely prime-ness (it does not matter that we don't know yet how to check prime-ness, the logical structure is the important point. (And, we can be sure that a test for prime-ness is possible!)). This allows us to write more code:
primes = 2 : filter isPrime [3..]
See? We are almost done. In 3 steps, we have reduced a fairly complex problem in such a way that all that is left to write is a quite simple predicate.
Again, we can write in pseudocode:
isPrime n = {- false if any number in 2..n-1 divides n, otherwise true -}
and can refine that. Since this is almost haskell already, it is too easy:
isPrime n = not (any (divides n) [2..n-1])
divides n p = n `rem` p == 0
Note that we did not do optimization yet. For example we can construct the list to be filtered right away to contain only odd numbers, since we know that even ones are not prime. More important, we want to reduce the number of candidates we have to try in isPrime. And here, some mathematical knowledge is needed (the same would be true if you programmed this in C++ or Java, of course), that tells us that it suffices to check if the n we are testing is divisible by any prime number, and that we do not need to check divisibility by prime numbers whose square is greater than n. Fortunately, we have already defined the list of prime numbers and can pick the set of candidates from there! I leave this as exercise.
You'll learn later how to use the standard library and the syntactic sugar like sections, list comprehensions, etc. and you will gradually give up to write your own basic functions.
Even later, when you have to do something in an imperative programming language again, you'll find it very hard to live without infinte lists, higher order functions, immutable data etc.
This will be as hard as going back from C to Assembler.
Have fun!
It's ok to have an imperative mindset at first. With time you will get more used to things and start seeing the places where you can have more functional programs. Practice makes perfect.
As for working with mutable variables you can kind of keep them for now if you follow the rule of thumb of converting variables into function parameters and iteration into tail recursion.
Off the top of my head:
Typeclassopedia. The official v1 of the document is a pdf, but the author has moved his v2 efforts to the Haskell wiki.
What is a monad? This SO Q&A is the best reference I can find.
What is a Monad Transformer? Monad Transformers Step by Step.
Learn from masters: Good Haskell source to read and learn from.
More advanced topics such as GADTs. There's a video, which does a great job explaining it.
And last but not least, #haskell IRC channel. Nothing can even come close to talk to real people.
I think the big change from your code to more haskell like code is using higher order functions, pattern matching and laziness better. For example, you could write the nthPrime function like this (using a similar algorithm to what you did, again ignoring efficiency):
nthPrime n = primes !! (n - 1) where
primes = filter isPrime [2..]
isPrime p = isPrime' p [2..p - 1]
isPrime' p [] = True
isPrime' p (x:xs)
| (p `mod` x == 0) = False
| otherwise = isPrime' p xs
Eg nthPrime 4 returns 7. A few things to note:
The isPrime' function uses pattern matching to implement the function, rather than relying on if statements.
the primes value is an infinite list of all primes. Since haskell is lazy, this is perfectly acceptable.
filter is used rather than reimplemented that behaviour using recursion.
With more experience you will find you will write more idiomatic haskell code - it sortof happens automatically with experience. So don't worry about it, just keep practicing, and reading other people's code.
Another approach, just for variety! Strong use of laziness...
module Main where
nonmults :: Int -> Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
nonmults n next [] = []
nonmults n next l#(x:xs)
| x < next = x : nonmults n next xs
| x == next = nonmults n (next + n) xs
| otherwise = nonmults n (next + n) l
select_primes :: [Int] -> [Int]
select_primes [] = []
select_primes (x:xs) =
x : (select_primes $ nonmults x (x + x) xs)
main :: IO ()
main = do
let primes = select_primes [2 ..]
putStrLn $ show $ primes !! 10000 -- the first prime is index 0 ...
I want to try to answer your question without using ANY functional programming or math, not because I don't think you will understand it, but because your question is very common and maybe others will benefit from the mindset I will try to describe. I'll preface this by saying I an not a Haskell expert by any means, but I have gotten past the mental block you have described by realizing the following:
1. Haskell is simple
Haskell, and other functional languages that I'm not so familiar with, are certainly very different from your 'normal' languages, like C, Java, Python, etc. Unfortunately, the way our psyche works, humans prematurely conclude that if something is different, then A) they don't understand it, and B) it's more complicated than what they already know. If we look at Haskell very objectively, we will see that these two conjectures are totally false:
"But I don't understand it :("
Actually you do. Everything in Haskell and other functional languages is defined in terms of logic and patterns. If you can answer a question as simple as "If all Meeps are Moops, and all Moops are Moors, are all Meeps Moors?", then you could probably write the Haskell Prelude yourself. To further support this point, consider that Haskell lists are defined in Haskell terms, and are not special voodoo magic.
"But it's complicated"
It's actually the opposite. It's simplicity is so naked and bare that our brains have trouble figuring out what to do with it at first. Compared to other languages, Haskell actually has considerably fewer "features" and much less syntax. When you read through Haskell code, you'll notice that almost all the function definitions look the same stylistically. This is very different than say Java for example, which has constructs like Classes, Interfaces, for loops, try/catch blocks, anonymous functions, etc... each with their own syntax and idioms.
You mentioned $ and ., again, just remember they are defined just like any other Haskell function and don't necessarily ever need to be used. However, if you didn't have these available to you, over time, you would likely implement these functions yourself when you notice how convenient they can be.
2. There is no Haskell version of anything
This is actually a great thing, because in Haskell, we have the freedom to define things exactly how we want them. Most other languages provide building blocks that people string together into a program. Haskell leaves it up to you to first define what a building block is, before building with it.
Many beginners ask questions like "How do I do a For loop in Haskell?" and innocent people who are just trying to help will give an unfortunate answer, probably involving a helper function, and extra Int parameter, and tail recursing until you get to 0. Sure, this construct can compute something like a for loop, but in no way is it a for loop, it's not a replacement for a for loop, and in no way is it really even similar to a for loop if you consider the flow of execution. Similar is the State monad for simulating state. It can be used to accomplish similar things as static variables do in other languages, but in no way is it the same thing. Most people leave off the last tidbit about it not being the same when they answer these kinds of questions and I think that only confuses people more until they realize it on their own.
3. Haskell is a logic engine, not a programming language
This is probably least true point I'm trying to make, but hear me out. In imperative programming languages, we are concerned with making our machines do stuff, perform actions, change state, and so on. In Haskell, we try to define what things are, and how are they supposed to behave. We are usually not concerned with what something is doing at any particular time. This certainly has benefits and drawbacks, but that's just how it is. This is very different than what most people think of when you say "programming language".
So that's my take how how to leave an imperative mindset and move to a more functional mindset. Realizing how sensible Haskell is will help you not look at your own code funny anymore. Hopefully thinking about Haskell in these ways will help you become a more productive Haskeller.
I'm not talking about algorithmic stuff (eg use quicksort instead of bubblesort), and I'm not talking about simple things like loop unrolling.
I'm talking about the hardcore stuff. Like Tiny Teensy ELF, The Story of Mel; practically everything in the demoscene, and so on.
I once wrote a brute force RC5 key search that processed two keys at a time, the first key used the integer pipeline, the second key used the SSE pipelines and the two were interleaved at the instruction level. This was then coupled with a supervisor program that ran an instance of the code on each core in the system. In total, the code ran about 25 times faster than a naive C version.
In one (here unnamed) video game engine I worked with, they had rewritten the model-export tool (the thing that turns a Maya mesh into something the game loads) so that instead of just emitting data, it would actually emit the exact stream of microinstructions that would be necessary to render that particular model. It used a genetic algorithm to find the one that would run in the minimum number of cycles. That is to say, the data format for a given model was actually a perfectly-optimized subroutine for rendering just that model. So, drawing a mesh to the screen meant loading it into memory and branching into it.
(This wasn't for a PC, but for a console that had a vector unit separate and parallel to the CPU.)
In the early days of DOS when we used floppy discs for all data transport there were viruses as well. One common way for viruses to infect different computers was to copy a virus bootloader into the bootsector of an inserted floppydisc. When the user inserted the floppydisc into another computer and rebooted without remembering to remove the floppy, the virus was run and infected the harddrive bootsector, thus permanently infecting the host PC. A particulary annoying virus I was infected by was called "Form", to battle this I wrote a custom floppy bootsector that had the following features:
Validate the bootsector of the host harddrive and make sure it was not infected.
Validate the floppy bootsector and
make sure that it was not infected.
Code to remove the virus from the
harddrive if it was infected.
Code to duplicate the antivirus
bootsector to another floppy if a
special key was pressed.
Code to boot the harddrive if all was
well, and no infections was found.
This was done in the program space of a bootsector, about 440 bytes :)
The biggest problem for my mates was the very cryptic messages displayed because I needed all the space for code. It was like "FFVD RM?", which meant "FindForm Virus Detected, Remove?"
I was quite happy with that piece of code. The optimization was program size, not speed. Two quite different optimizations in assembly.
My favorite is the floating point inverse square root via integer operations. This is a cool little hack on how floating point values are stored and can execute faster (even doing a 1/result is faster than the stock-standard square root function) or produce more accurate results than the standard methods.
In c/c++ the code is: (sourced from Wikipedia)
float InvSqrt (float x)
{
float xhalf = 0.5f*x;
int i = *(int*)&x;
i = 0x5f3759df - (i>>1); // Now this is what you call a real magic number
x = *(float*)&i;
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x);
return x;
}
A Very Biological Optimisation
Quick background: Triplets of DNA nucleotides (A, C, G and T) encode amino acids, which are joined into proteins, which are what make up most of most living things.
Ordinarily, each different protein requires a separate sequence of DNA triplets (its "gene") to encode its amino acids -- so e.g. 3 proteins of lengths 30, 40, and 50 would require 90 + 120 + 150 = 360 nucleotides in total. However, in viruses, space is at a premium -- so some viruses overlap the DNA sequences for different genes, using the fact that there are 6 possible "reading frames" to use for DNA-to-protein translation (namely starting from a position that is divisible by 3; from a position that divides 3 with remainder 1; or from a position that divides 3 with remainder 2; and the same again, but reading the sequence in reverse.)
For comparison: Try writing an x86 assembly language program where the 300-byte function doFoo() begins at offset 0x1000... and another 200-byte function doBar() starts at offset 0x1001! (I propose a name for this competition: Are you smarter than Hepatitis B?)
That's hardcore space optimisation!
UPDATE: Links to further info:
Reading Frames on Wikipedia suggests Hepatitis B and "Barley Yellow Dwarf" virus (a plant virus) both overlap reading frames.
Hepatitis B genome info on Wikipedia. Seems that different reading-frame subunits produce different variations of a surface protein.
Or you could google for "overlapping reading frames"
Seems this can even happen in mammals! Extensively overlapping reading frames in a second mammalian gene is a 2001 scientific paper by Marilyn Kozak that talks about a "second" gene in rat with "extensive overlapping reading frames". (This is quite surprising as mammals have a genome structure that provides ample room for separate genes for separate proteins.) Haven't read beyond the abstract myself.
I wrote a tile-based game engine for the Apple IIgs in 65816 assembly language a few years ago. This was a fairly slow machine and programming "on the metal" is a virtual requirement for coaxing out acceptable performance.
In order to quickly update the graphics screen one has to map the stack to the screen in order to use some special instructions that allow one to update 4 screen pixels in only 5 machine cycles. This is nothing particularly fantastic and is described in detail in IIgs Tech Note #70. The hard-core bit was how I had to organize the code to make it flexible enough to be a general-purpose library while still maintaining maximum speed.
I decomposed the graphics screen into scan lines and created a 246 byte code buffer to insert the specialized 65816 opcodes. The 246 bytes are needed because each scan line of the graphics screen is 80 words wide and 1 additional word is required on each end for smooth scrolling. The Push Effective Address (PEA) instruction takes up 3 bytes, so 3 * (80 + 1 + 1) = 246 bytes.
The graphics screen is rendered by jumping to an address within the 246 byte code buffer that corresponds to the right edge of the screen and patching in a BRanch Always (BRA) instruction into the code at the word immediately following the left-most word. The BRA instruction takes a signed 8-bit offset as its argument, so it just barely has the range to jump out of the code buffer.
Even this isn't too terribly difficult, but the real hard-core optimization comes in here. My graphics engine actually supported two independent background layers and animated tiles by using different 3-byte code sequences depending on the mode:
Background 1 uses a Push Effective Address (PEA) instruction
Background 2 uses a Load Indirect Indexed (LDA ($00),y) instruction followed by a push (PHA)
Animated tiles use a Load Direct Page Indexed (LDA $00,x) instruction followed by a push (PHA)
The critical restriction is that both of the 65816 registers (X and Y) are used to reference data and cannot be modified. Further the direct page register (D) is set based on the origin of the second background and cannot be changed; the data bank register is set to the data bank that holds pixel data for the second background and cannot be changed; the stack pointer (S) is mapped to graphics screen, so there is no possibility of jumping to a subroutine and returning.
Given these restrictions, I had the need to quickly handle cases where a word that is about to be pushed onto the stack is mixed, i.e. half comes from Background 1 and half from Background 2. My solution was to trade memory for speed. Because all of the normal registers were in use, I only had the Program Counter (PC) register to work with. My solution was the following:
Define a code fragment to do the blend in the same 64K program bank as the code buffer
Create a copy of this code for each of the 82 words
There is a 1-1 correspondence, so the return from the code fragment can be a hard-coded address
Done! We have a hard-coded subroutine that does not affect the CPU registers.
Here is the actual code fragments
code_buff: PEA $0000 ; rightmost word (16-bits = 4 pixels)
PEA $0000 ; background 1
PEA $0000 ; background 1
PEA $0000 ; background 1
LDA (72),y ; background 2
PHA
LDA (70),y ; background 2
PHA
JMP word_68 ; mix the data
word_68_rtn: PEA $0000 ; more background 1
...
PEA $0000
BRA *+40 ; patched exit code
...
word_68: LDA (68),y ; load data for background 2
AND #$00FF ; mask
ORA #$AB00 ; blend with data from background 1
PHA
JMP word_68_rtn ; jump back
word_66: LDA (66),y
...
The end result was a near-optimal blitter that has minimal overhead and cranks out more than 15 frames per second at 320x200 on a 2.5 MHz CPU with a 1 MB/s memory bus.
Michael Abrash's "Zen of Assembly Language" had some nifty stuff, though I admit I don't recall specifics off the top of my head.
Actually it seems like everything Abrash wrote had some nifty optimization stuff in it.
The Stalin Scheme compiler is pretty crazy in that aspect.
I once saw a switch statement with a lot of empty cases, a comment at the head of the switch said something along the lines of:
Added case statements that are never hit because the compiler only turns the switch into a jump-table if there are more than N cases
I forget what N was. This was in the source code for Windows that was leaked in 2004.
I've gone to the Intel (or AMD) architecture references to see what instructions there are. movsx - move with sign extension is awesome for moving little signed values into big spaces, for example, in one instruction.
Likewise, if you know you only use 16-bit values, but you can access all of EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX , etc- then you have 8 very fast locations for values - just rotate the registers by 16 bits to access the other values.
The EFF DES cracker, which used custom-built hardware to generate candidate keys (the hardware they made could prove a key isn't the solution, but could not prove a key was the solution) which were then tested with a more conventional code.
The FSG 2.0 packer made by a Polish team, specifically made for packing executables made with assembly. If packing assembly isn't impressive enough (what's supposed to be almost as low as possible) the loader it comes with is 158 bytes and fully functional. If you try packing any assembly made .exe with something like UPX, it will throw a NotCompressableException at you ;)