Hi Tom,

Thank you for explainations!

> Potential Viterbi optimization using SIMD methods is substantial as I
> demonstrated many years ago. The implementation does require
> separation of puncturing and Viterbi. Unfortunately, the has code
> experienced code rot since then. Admittedly, I accept much of that
> blame.

I think it would be really good to have/use your Viterbi implementation
inside the libosmocoding. Regarding to some remarks to your code, I am
ready to fix them (such as malloc -> talloc).

Moreover, recently I had a conversation with Alexander Chemeris. He also
mentioned your implementation, which would be better to use in embedded
platforms (such as UmSITE) due to performance reasons.

> In summary, my concern is about the implementation and not the API.
> Perhaps we could pull the puncturing into the library as Max suggests.
> Then, separately, consider performance changes to the internal
> puncturing and Viterbi implementations.

So, my suggestion is to:

1) Extend your code with encoding capabilities.
2) Merge Viterbi transcoder with the libosmocoding.
3) Merge libosmocoding into libosmocore as a sub-library
   or spawn a separate repository.

Any opinions?