I run the same program using Microsoft Visual C and VisualDSP++4.5 simulator. the VC spend 2 seconds, but the VisualDSP++4.5 cost 10 hours. how to improve the VisualDSP++ simulator`s speed?
Unfortunately, yes, as you use the TS201 there is no Compiled Simulator available for this target, so the only available option is the slow Cycle Accurate Simulator.
Derek wrote: I run the same program using Microsoft Visual C and VisualDSP++4.5 simulator. the VC spend 2 seconds, but the VisualDSP++4.5 cost 10 hours. how to improve the VisualDSP++ simulator`s speed?
If you are using a Blackfin processor, we provide a 'Compiled Simulator' as well as the 'cycle accurate simulator'. The Compiled simulator is much faster than the cycle accurate simulator. You can find more details of the differences between these simulators at this post: Re: What are the differences between the Compiled Simulator and the Cycle Accurate Simulator?
For the other processors, we provide only the 'Cycle Accurate Simulator', and this cycle-accuracy causes a lot of extra work within the simulator to ensure that the results are accurate which is why you see a difference between this and VisualC++, and it is to be expected that the native Win32 application produced by VisualC++ running on a Win32 machine would be much faster than running an executable within the simulator.
The Compiled Simulator can be selected when configuring your session via 'Session'->'New Session'.
You may be able to improve the performance within the simulator by ensuring that your code is optimize. Please see the section 'Achieving Optimal Performance from C/C++ Source Code' in the Compiler Manual for your processor, available via 'Help'->'Contents'->'Manuals'->'Software Tool Manuals'.
Finally, I should mention that hardware targets are faster than the cycle-accurate simulators, and you may want to look at using an EZ-KIT Lite or third party hardware target - and, optionally, a USB Emulator. More information is available from the following links:
Blackfin EZ-Kit Lites - http://www.analog.com/blackfin/ezkits
SHARC EZ-Kit Lites - http://www.analog.com/sharc/ezkits
TigerSHARC EZ-Kit Lites - http://www.analog.com/tigersharc/ezkits
USB Emulators - http://www.analog.com/USB/Emulator
Third Party Collaborative - www.analog.com/processors/3rdparty
The VisualDSP++ simulators are doing a lot more work than Visual C++ as they need to simulate DSPs whereas Visual C output is optimized for your native processor. Of course there is a drastic difference in speed.
If you simply want to write/debug C code, Visual C++ may be a better starting point for you. You can always port to VisualDSP++ when you are ready to program a DSP directly.
CraigG and Merril, thank you for yur help!
My processor is TS201. According to CraigG, I will have to endure a slow simulator, don`t you?
Retrieving data ...