On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:15 +0200, Peter Meerwald wrote:
Hello,
I have submitted v3 of my ARM NEON patches July 24
(http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2012-July/014226.html)
but not received any feedback
any comment on this?
Sorry for the lack of feedback.
Hello,
I have submitted v3 of my ARM NEON patches July 24
(http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2012-July/014226.html)
but not received any feedback
any comment on this?
thanks, regards, p.
--
Peter Meerwald
+43-664-218 (mobile)
Hello,
I have submitted v3 of my ARM NEON patches July 24
(http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2012-July/014226.html)
but not received any feedback
I understand this takes some time to review and test; this is just a
reminder to make sure the patches do not go unnoticed :)
Le vendredi 10 février 2012 19:13:38 Peter Meerwald, vous avez écrit :
-mfpu=neon, then the compiler assumes the code will run ONLY on
NEON-capable ARM devices. If you want to do run-time detection, you MUST
NOT pass the corresponding compiler flag. (The same is true of MMX and
SSE by the
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 17:20 +0100, Peter Meerwald wrote:
Hello,
here is some optimized code for ARM NEON for sconv, svolume and remap
(benchmarks below for a Beagleboard-XM)
Nice! Sorry it's taken so long. I've pulled the 3 misc patches right
now. Will review the rest soon.
I put this up
Hello,
thank you for considering the patches
* I have no runtime comparison for the orc svolume code yet (note that
orc is not used on ARM yet, although it should be possible)
The ARM version of the svolume code makes use of 'smulwb' instruction,
making it faster than the Orc code since
arun.ragha...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
The lack of a configuration option is fine. And as I understand it, the
convention in the ARM world is you compile for a given target and run
only on a machine that is a superset of that target. So, unlike with
MMX/SSE, not having a run-time tests is
