Hi Thomas,
From: Thomas Tsou tom@tsou.cc On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Alexander Chemeris alexander.chemeris@gmail.com wrote:
I think compile time detection is more appropriate.
Yes, that's fine for now.
/proc/cpuinfo parsing scripts I've seen have been prone to breakage. If you have a really good one, let me know. I usually prefer to run configure checks against the actual instruction, but that can get messy with a lot of checks. Anyhow, I'm not worrying about this now.
Sorry, I'm not aware of any.
What repository will you push at? We need to have at least master branch and dual-channel branch working with the optimizations. And I believe everyone would be happy to see optimizations in the libosmocore for the benefit of other projects as well. I don't foresee any issues with a slight change in the API of libosmocore if it is justified - just send an RFC/patch to the OpenBSC mailing list and it will be reviewed.
Non-Viterbi changes are sigProc.cpp changes only, so they are not branch-specific - they will probably merge into the oldest available OpenBTS releases. The Viterbi changes merge into Andreas's branch, which is a very large change. For now, somebody needs to write it, which is why I'm considering making the interfaces match.
Could you publish them for review? It's hard to talk about a code without looking at it.
Attached are the standalone unit test cases for SSE 4.2. As previously mentioned, Atom needs SSE3 only. I'll add the ifdefs for those shortly. I don't know if there's an appropriate repository for these right now - linking libosmocore from the transceiver for comparison purposes only seems silly. I just generated a temporary tarball for the time being.
Ok, waiting for the updated version to test it on my Core 2 Duo and Atoms.
-- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru