similar to: Speex port to Coldfire or Equivalent

Hi All, I am trying to cross compile speex-1.1.12 to powerpc-405, i get a error after the make, speexec.lo error, please help me how to get rid of this error. On 2/9/07, speex-dev-request@xiph.org <speex-dev-request@xiph.org> wrote: > Send Speex-dev mailing list submissions to > speex-dev@xiph.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Hi All, I am getting this error during make. please help me./ speexec.c: In function `speex_ec_process': speexec.c:112: syntax error before "noise" cc1: warnings being treated as errors speexec.c:133: warning: implicit declaration of function `speex_echo_state_reset' speexec.c:148: warning: passing arg 5 of `speex_echo_cancel' makes pointer from integer without a cast

Hi Guys, I'm attempting to use the libspeexdsp component with a Coldfire M5329. I've downloaded the speex-1.2beta3 and configured using the following: ./configure --host=m68k-uclinux --prefix=/home/uclinux/uClinux-dist --enable-fixed-point LDFLAGS='-Wl,-elf2flt' The library builds fine (or appears to) an is placed in the subdir 'lib' of the prefix shown above; my routine

I am the sysadmin in an office with an overabundance of Win95 machines and a few NT 4.0 workstations. All installs went relatively easy for logon scripts, wins, etc. I have run into a semi-serious problem with 2 of the 3 NT workstations. (All running the same service pack - 1). When trying to make a share from one of the 2 remaining workstations, I will recevie an error message saying that:

Hello everyone! I've started to implement a ColdFire backend, but there are some troubles during configuring: $ ../llvm/configure --enable-targets=x86,x86_64,coldfire ... ... ... checking whether byte ordering is bigendian... no configure: error: Unrecognized target coldfire configure: error: ../../../llvm/projects/sample/configure failed for projects/sample I've added ColdFire to : 1)

Le mer 31/03/2004 à 02:51, George Bratis a écrit : > I think that if you want to use a low cost dsp you must rewrite ti in > assebmly. > In our tests you will need 4-5 times more MIPS just compiling C code. You may need to rewrite 3-4 compute-intensive, but definitely not the whole thing. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Valin http://www.xiph.org/~jm/ LABORIUS Université de Sherbrooke,

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $

I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag does a great job improving the performance of floating point intensive code on the SciMark2 benchmark but it also degrades the performance of the int-intensive Monte Carlo part of the test: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Using

I upgraded from CentOS 5.9 to CentOS 6.4. I try to reuse my virtual machines and am only partially successful: I can run them, I just cannot get the network OK and need some help with that. What I had in the past was pretty simple: both the host and the VM's used eth0 and each had an IP in the same subnet and could communicate freely. With the new install it seems somewhat more complex and I

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the > command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? -Eli

Hi All, I am getting this error during make. please help me./ speexec.c: In function `speex_ec_process': speexec.c:112: syntax error before "noise" cc1: warnings being treated as errors speexec.c:133: warning: implicit declaration of function `speex_echo_state_reset' speexec.c:148: warning: passing arg 5 of `speex_echo_cancel' makes pointer from integer without a cast

Hi Peter, > Why not do this too? I've applied this - thanks for the patch! Ciao, Duncan.

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Vadim Khoptynets wrote: > Hello everyone! > > I've started to implement a ColdFire backend, but there are some troubles > during configuring: > > $ ../llvm/configure --enable-targets=x86,x86_64,coldfire > ... > ... > ... > checking whether byte ordering is bigendian... no > configure: error: Unrecognized target

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Vadim Khoptynets wrote: >> Hello everyone! >> >> I've started to implement a ColdFire backend, but there are some troubles >> during configuring: >> >> $ ../llvm/configure --enable-targets=x86,x86_64,coldfire >> ... >>

Duncan, Do a quick check here on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with svn llvm and svn dragon-egg against release gcc 4.5.0, the results from the himenoBMTxpa benchmark compiled at -O3 look pretty good. With stock gcc-4.5.0, we get... Grid-size = M mimax = 128 mjmax = 128 mkmax = 256 imax = 127 jmax = 127 kmax =255 Start rehearsal measurement process. Measure the performance in 3 times. MFLOPS:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

Hi I didn't get bridgeing to work with Linux kernel 2.6.10 (coldfire 5485) yet. When i try to configure bridgeing with "brctl", everything seems to be ok, but i if i try to ping through my bridge, i see ARP-Request arriving on the other side, but the ARP-Responses do not go back through the bridge. Now i could read in

I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22589 are even more severe. For 10 runs of scimark2_1c built with "-O3 -march=native"... llvm 3.5.1 1204.16+/-2.66 Mflops 3.6 branch 866.49+/-1.26 Mflops Do you seriously want to ship with a 39% performance

Hello, I'd like to develop a codec for the Ogg Vorbis algorithm on a DSP (controller?) hardware platform. We've got 2 (3) main applications: 1) the codec should be used for 2 channel simultaneous message recording/playback on flash EPROM. 2) the codec should be used for streaming audio over IP or Ethernet/intranet networks. 3) for large system, the PC should serve as a storing device We

They claim to max out at 1,800 MFLOPs And have a clock speed of up to 300 mhz. Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >Tell me how fast these chips are, I'll tell you if there's a chance... > > Jean-Marc > >Le jeu 18/12/2003 à 16:52, David Siebert a écrit : > > >>Anyone have any idea if the any of the Sharc or TigerSHARC DSPs are >>powerful enough to do realtime Speex?