Hi Bruce and Shane, thanks for the pointers. Yeah... SHARC is still around. I know.... except..wait for it---- there is low power sharc ! yes, I know you would have just fallen off your chair. The dual ported internal memory has gone but it's largely unchanged. There are also dual sharcs, and cortexA series + sharc on the one chip . (not sure if on the same die) . and cheap now, 'bout the same price as a STM32F4/7 Tools are eclipse based.. No more VisualDSP and the C++ compiler use to suck anyway.(so mostly asm)
I haven't done a serious SHARC project for 10 years... why... I want horsepower for multiple simultaneous modems. I am a bit lazy- can't be bothered with fancy clock/bit tracking algorthms and they all go to pot in heavy fading conditions , so I like to run 8 or 16 parallel modems and pick the winner. cheers On 28/07/2015 10:03 AM, Bruce Perens wrote: > The SHARC is still around, eh? David did some optimization, but it's > not tightly coupled to the CPU at all. > It's also the simplest possible implementation from a systems > programming perspective. It busy loops. If you wanted to be battery > efficient and you weren't so close to the limit of the CPU capability > that sleep would not help, you'd have to fix that part. > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, glen english <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi All >> I am considering retargeting codec2 / sm1000 etc for another micro . a >> '21477. >> and this will include a rather strong modem. >> (or I might stick with stm32F7) >> >> In opinion, just how much of the STMF4 code for codec2 is hard optimized >> for the stm? >> >> Without spending alot of time looking at it, I am wondering abut the >> implications for me of using a different processor. IE how much stuff is >> tightly coupled to the way the stmf4 works ? >> >> Part of the deal with getting micros like the M4 to really fly in DSP >> land (and get them even close to their pure DSP brothers) are tightly >> writing to the processor and compiler architectures. >> >> all opinions welcome. >> >> next step will be actually compiling for sharc and seeing what happens. >> I expect an 'average' result- as the stmf4 is good for multipurpose >> things, but the SHARC compilers are not. Or rather, the sharc compiler >> does not in generally utilize the very rich instruction set available to >> it- only about half of the very fancy instructions of the sharc are >> used, leading to lacklustre performance for GP computing. >> >> >> glen Vk1XX >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> Freetel-codec2 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Freetel-codec2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2 > -- - Glen English RF Communications and Electronics Engineer CORTEX RF & Pacific Media Technologies Pty Ltd ABN 40 075 532 008 PO Box 5231 Lyneham ACT 2602, Australia. au mobile : +61 (0)418 975077 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freetel-codec2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
