Monthly Archives: October 2015

Compute Basis with SIMD

A while back Erin Catto made a cool post about his short function to compute a basis given a vector. The cool thing was that the basis is axis aligned if the input vector is axis aligned.

Catto noted that the function can be converted to branchless SIMD by using a select operation. So, a while ago I sat down and wrote the function, and only used it once. It didn’t really seem all too helpful to have a SIMD version, but it was fun to write anyway (I made use of Microsoft’s __Vectorcall):



Single File Libraries – |

Sean T. Barrett makes a lot of very cool single-file libraries in C. Recently he’s also been making another big list of other single-file (or two files with src/header) that he likes.

The great thing about Sean’s libraries is that they contain functions that do exactly what they intend to accomplish, without doing anything more or less. They don’t contain any extra complexity other than specifically what is needed to get the job done. This helps when preventing his libraries from creating external dependencies, meaning his libs can be deployed as a single file inclusion into a pre-existing project, without linking to external libraries or requiring additional headers.

These qualities make libraries like Sean’s extremely easy to hookup and get going. If you want to learn how to make quality libraries just look at any of the STB libraries.

Writing Libraries

Sean writes libraries in an old version of Visual Studio (I think VC6?), and codes in C. He also keeps all of his code inside of a single file while writing it — I’ve seen this on For the rest of us that aren’t as crazy or hardcore as Sean we can just use is a Perl script written by an unknown author (probably written by Richard Mitton). I found the file inside of Mitton’s single-file library “tigr”, which stands for Tiny Graphics Library. Mitton uses to recursively include a bunch of files into one larger c file. Check out the script yourself:

The idea is to make a dummy C file that includes other source files, like this:

Then can be run from the command line (assuming you have Perl installed) like so:

The script outputs some nice and quick text to stdout displaying which files were visited and packages the entire source tree into a single source file. The output file contains nice comments indicated the beginning and ending of files, like this excerpt from one of my own single-file libraries:


Mitton writes about the old joys of using the incbin command in assembly, where the assembler would embed the binary contents of a file straight into your program. It sounds like this gets dubious when dealing with linkers nowadays (I’ve had some really long link times by including large files into source code…), though it still happens from time to time in small single-file libraries.

An example is in Mitton’s tigr library where he uses a makeshift perl script “” to embed shaders and a png file (containing raster font glyphs) straight into C source code. This concept can also be seen in Omar Ocornut’s imgui library where some font files are embedded into the source. Omar seems to have used a small C program to generate the binary data as C source.

Again, I’m not sure who originally wrote this script but it was probably Mitton himself.

Finding Heap Corruption Tip on Windows

If one is fortunate enough to have access to <crtdbg.h> from Microsoft’s Visual C++ header, when running in debug mode there are a few _Crt*** functions that can  be pretty useful. My favorite ones are _CrtCheckMemory and _CrtDbgBreak (which is just a macro for __debugbreak in my case).

This function checks padding bytes around allocations made by the debug heap for buffer overruns. Usually this is not too necessary if you just do bounds checking yourself in debug mode, though sometimes old code crops up that you didn’t even write yourself, and needs debugging.

Lucky enough for me I had a good guess as to where the corruption was coming from as I had some call stacks in-tact from my crash. Finding the heap corruption was easy in my particular case since the code is deterministic and can be re-run quickly. Sprinkling this macro around will let me back-trace through the code to find exactly where the first instance of corruption happened:

A few minutes later I ended up here:

Since my breakpoint activated just after this function call, but not before, I knew the corruption came from this pesky function. Turns out it was a weird typo that was really sneaky, just barely causing an off-by-one error.

See if you can spot the error below. Here’s the answer (text is white, so highlight it to read): on line 8 chromSize needs to be changed to i.

Good If Statements – Self Documenting Code

Here’s a quick trick for documenting those pesky if-statements, especially when littered with complicated mathematics.

Here’s an example from Timothy Master’s “Pragmatic Neural Network Recipes in C++” where the author needed to test some interval bounds to see if the conditions were appropriate to perform a parabolic estimate of a step-size. Sounds, and looks, complicated:

In my opinion this author writes extremely good code. In the above example the details of the code are very well documented, however that’s just due to wonderful (albeit dubiously placed) comments. When modified slightly the code can still maintain the same readability and perhaps gain a little clarity:

The trick is to just name those little integer values that collapse down to a 1 or 0 (the comparison operators in C, like && and ||, take their arguments and return a 1 or 0). One of the most common applications of this kind of naming is when there’s a complex end condition in an algorithm. Often times this kind of termination criterion can just be called “done”:


Circular Orbits | Planetary Motion | NBody Simulation

I took a few hours yesterday to start on a simulation for a job application. Part of the simulation involves trying to figure out how to create stable nbody orbits, at least stable for some amount of time to look interesting.

Turns out that the mathematics beyond constructing a circular orbit of just two bodies is a bit far-fetch’d. We can see in this link that solving for the velocity of each planet is very straightforward. Let me take a screenshot of the final equations here:


To me this makes a lot of sense and matches my own derivation, albeit with a slightly different final form (just due to some algebra differences). I plug in the equation into my simulation and hit run, however there’s just not enough velocity to keep an orbit. See for yourself (the simulation is slowed down a lot compared to later gifs):


Each white circle is a body (like a planet) and the red circle is the system’s barycenter.

So I tinkered a bit and found out the velocity is too dim by a factor of sqrt( 2 ). My best guess is that the equations I’m dealing with have some kind of approximation involved where one of the bodies is supposed to be infinitely large. I don’t quite have the time to look into this detail (since I have much more exciting things to finish in the simulation), so I just plugged in my sqrt( 2 ) factor and got this result:


Here’s the function I wrote down to solve for orbit velocity in the above gif:

I’m able to run the simulation for thousands of years without any destabilization.

If any readers have any clue as to why the velocity is off by a factor of rad 2 please let me know, I’d be very interested in learning what the hiccup was.

Next I’ll try to write some code for iteratively finding systems of more than 2 bodies that have a stable configuration for some duration of time. I plan to use a genetic algorithm, or maybe something based off of perturbation theory, though I think a genetic algorithm will yield better results. Currently the difficulty lies in measuring the system stability. For now the best metrics I’ve come up with is measuring movement of the barycenter and bounding the entire simulation inside of a large sphere. If the barycenter moves, or if bodies are too far from the barycenter I can deem such systems as unstable and try other configurations.

One particularly interesting aspect of the barycenter is if I create a group of stationary bodies and let them just attract each other through gravity, the barycenter seems to always be dead stationary! The moment I manually initialize a planet with some velocity the barycenter moves, but if they all start at rest the barycenter is 100% stable.