George Bratis wrote:>Speex now runs on a fixed point DSP with relative little MIPS. >The main problem is that you must rewrite the hole code in assembly. > >George > >Why must you write it in assembly? What is wrong with running the C code on a DSP? Sure you can improve the efficiency if you use assembly, but why do you say it is *necessary*? Regards, Steve --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'speex-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:51:20AM +0300, George Bratis wrote:> 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.This was also our experience porting the Tremor vorbis decoder to a TI dsp. The vendor toolchain is useless; someone really needs to pay cygnus to port gcc. -r --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'speex-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
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, Québec, Canada -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée. Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20040331/80b7f752/signature-0001.pgp
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. George ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Underwood" <steveu@coppice.org> To: <speex-dev@xiph.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [speex-dev] speex on a DSP chip? <p>> George Bratis wrote:> > >Speex now runs on a fixed point DSP with relative little MIPS. > >The main problem is that you must rewrite the hole code in assembly. > > > >George > > > > > Why must you write it in assembly? What is wrong with running the C code > on a DSP? Sure you can improve the efficiency if you use assembly, but > why do you say it is *necessary*? > > Regards, > Steve > > --- >8 ---- > List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ > Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ > To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to'speex-dev-request@xiph.org'> containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. > Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'speex-dev-request@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.