On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0700, Wilton Helm wrote: > I'm a bit puzzled, also, having implemented ulaw and alaw in an > embedded application. Each can be done with a 16 Kbyte table in about > 0 time with no errors. There are probably tricks that will cut the > table down by 2 or 4 X for a small cost in CPU cycles. The inverse > requires 256 16 bit words. I thought ulaw and alaw were pretty much > no brainers. I don't know of any gottchas. Why anyone with more that > a few K bytes of total system memory would even consider anything > other than a lookup table is beyond me. > > Wilton
Wilton-- AFAIK, the current algorithms (old & new) are indeed table lookup. It wouldn't hurt for you to do a code review on them, you might be able to improve them...! murf > > _______________________________________________ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Steve Murphy Software Developer Digium
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
