octave-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #47505] Bit reversal order(bitrevorder) functi


From: anonymous
Subject: [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #47505] Bit reversal order(bitrevorder) function in 'Signal' package is incorrect.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 06:11:27 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/49.0.2623.87 Safari/537.36

URL:
  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?47505>

                 Summary: Bit reversal order(bitrevorder) function in 'Signal'
package is incorrect.
                 Project: GNU Octave
            Submitted by: None
            Submitted on: 2016년 03월 23일 (수) 오전 06시 11분 26초
                Category: Octave Forge Package
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: Incorrect Result
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: hyunwook ji
        Originator Email: address@hidden
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
                 Release: 4.0.0
        Operating System: Microsoft Windows

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

Hello, I'm using GNU Octave 4.0.0, instead of MATLAB R2015b, for the usage of
HW/SW co-simulation.

At first, my source code was written in MATLAB and this code contains
'bitrevorder' function. 

Of course, this source code runs correctly in MATLAB.

But in Octave, my source code runs incorrectly because of the difference of
'bitrevorder' function.

In MATLAB, what bitrevorder function do : just reorder some values(double,
complex number, ..., whatever.) in bit-reversal order. 

But, the same function in Octave doesn't.
Yeah, it also reorders some values in bit-reversal order, but the results are
"COMPLEX CONJUGATED" unnecessarily.

I think you guys probably would not have intended to create this function to
reorder in bit-reversal order "with complex conjugation", 
that's why I think it is the bug inside the bitrevorder function.




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?47505>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]