9 Jul
2013
9 Jul
'13
10:54 a.m.
Hi Thomas,
Could you publish them for review? It's hard to talk about a code
without looking at it.
From: Thomas Tsou <tom(a)tsou.cc>
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Alexander Chemeris
<alexander.chemeris(a)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. 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