Binary Parsing - Which method is faster - CHALLENGE

[altenbach]

---

@DailyDose wrote:
But this will produce 8 boolean, yes?  Which later you must then dig out only the 6.

---

"Number to boolean array" will also produce 8 booleans for an U8 input. Just because you don't index them out is irrelevant. The cluster size is set to six, so that's fine.

[altenbach]

---

@BertMcMahan wrote:

Pre-generating a lookup table array seems to beat Solution B (as-posted) by about 2x:

.

---

Careful there! If you use a 6 bit LUT, the index needs to be masked to 6 bits because in the current example the indices can be any 8 bit value.

Of course in the real application this might not be needed, assuming the number is guaranteed not to exceed 6 bits (0..63).

Note that the LUT generation is "constant folded", i.e. replaced by an array constant in the compiled code)

[DailyDose]

---

@mcduff wrote:

---

@DailyDose wrote:

---

---

But this will produce 8 boolean, yes?  Which later you must then dig out only the 6.

---

Don't understand the question. Your VI used only 6 booleans, if you want all 8 right click and change the array to cluster size. (This picks out the first 6 booleans in the array.) The main limitation is that you can't specify just the middle booleans, only from beginning to end.

---

No, that's my bad.  I.... A) Didn't know you could do that.  And B) Didn't see the comment.  My apologies.

[DailyDose]

Looks like the LUT method is leading by a significant margin (and I'm even giving the LUT a handicap by building it each time).  Props to @MertMcMahan and @altenbach

[altenbach]

---

@DailyDose wrote:

(and I'm even giving the LUT a handicap by building it each time).

---

Make sure you turn off debugging and the LUT generation will be constant folded, i.e calculated once at compile time.. No penalty.