Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "exc2buf".
Did you mean:
exbuf
2005 Feb 28
2
memory usage
hi,
jean-marc: i think we can remove spx_sig_t *orig.
but am not sure about exc2Buf. is it for extension?
rgds,
tk
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:42:38 -0500, Jean-Marc Valin
<Jean-Marc.Valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I looked at the code I think there are still places where you can reduce
> memory. For example, I think bufSize can be reduced to around 400
&g...
2005 Feb 28
4
memory usage
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 19:42 -0500, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> > jean-marc: i think we can remove spx_sig_t *orig.
> > but am not sure about exc2Buf. is it for extension?
>
> orig is already removed in SVN (which you should probably use). As for
> exc2, it can be removed, but I'm not sure if you can just use exc
> instead (maybe yes).
>
when removing "spx_sig_t *orig;" in the encoder, the stack usage
went from 170...
2005 Mar 01
0
memory usage
Alfred E. Heggestad wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 19:42 -0500, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>
>
>>>jean-marc: i think we can remove spx_sig_t *orig.
>>>but am not sure about exc2Buf. is it for extension?
>>>
>>>
>>orig is already removed in SVN (which you should probably use). As for
>>exc2, it can be removed, but I'm not sure if you can just use exc
>>instead (maybe yes).
>>
>>
>>
>when removing "spx_...
2005 Feb 27
2
memory usage
hi Alfred,
>I am currently trying to port speex v1.1.6 to a microcontroller with
>very limited memory (<64Kbyte RAM).
if forced to the wall, you can try below (need to "rewrite" the code a little):
unless i am very much mistaken, you can do "dynamic allocation" for
some of the memory. these memories are only required when you are
running eg speex_encode for the