12 Oct
2016
12 Oct
'16
8:10 p.m.
I don't know. Maybe Tom has one?
Otherwise I can try to write myself.
Tom Tsou wrote:
There was a discussion many years ago about
puncturing
inside or outside of the convolutional coder loops. I preferred
separating puncturing and convolutional coding because of efficiency.
Using discrete implementations allows faster implementations.
With best regards,
Vadim Yanitskiy.
2016-10-13 0:58 GMT+07:00 Max <msuraev(a)sysmocom.de>de>:
Is there some microbenchmark available? Perhaps we can
use it to improve
generated code?
On 10/12/2016 07:51 PM, Vadim Yanitskiy wrote:
Hi Max,
--
Max Suraev <msuraev(a)sysmocom.de> http://www.sysmocom.de/
=======================================================================
* sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH
* Alt-Moabit 93
* 10559 Berlin, Germany
* Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B
* Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Director: Harald Welte
Unfortunately I could not find any tests for the
code in
question so the only way to test it is by:
I uploaded tests recently. You can find them here:
https://gerrit.osmocom.org/#/c/933/4/tests/coding/coding_test.c
I think the puncturing code should be part of the
library (otherwise
every user will have to reimplement the same thing again and again).
I am agree with you. We recently discussed this question with Tom Tsou.
He said, that there was some performance related reasons to perform
puncturing inside both gsm0503_pdtch_encode() / gsm0503_pdtch_decode().
With best regards,
Vadim Yanitskiy.