[Speex-dev] Speex on TI C6x, Problem with TI C5x Patch
jim.crichton at comcast.net
Wed May 25 12:25:37 PDT 2005
>> 1) We need our own "fixed_xx.h" header file. I don't know why, and
>> had time to investigate, but there is a definite improvement when I use
>> attached fixed_c55x.h file which has turned all the maths into inline
> Did you try with fixed_generic.h or just with fixed_debug.h?
> fixed_debug.h uses int and short directly, so I know it won't work with
> the C5x. However, I think fixed_generic.h should work and has all the
> operators defined as macros anyway, so inlining isn't a problem.
I incorporated Stuarts fixed_c55x.h file, and that eliminated the artifacts,
at the expense of a ~30% increase in MIPs. Now the male.wav file through
encoder/decoder produces a bit-exact match with the C64x test that I did
earlier. I will do some more testing to isolate the, but it may be a few
days before I get to this task. As Jean-Marc says, fixed_generic should
work, unless the compiler becomes hopelessly confused by something. Maybe
this is a compiler bug.
I noticed that in Jamey Hicks original 1.1.6 patch, he had test code with
inline function (and some counters for measuring macro use), but I got the
same results in this build with the inline functions or the macros. So
something is different in 1.1.8.
>> Some optimisation or something is probably possible here to
>> reduce code size and inline the functions, as by default the C55x
>> does not seem to inline them (perhaps due to debugging mode). This can be
>> enabled with a C55X_ASM definition following the ARM fixed point math
>> definition convention, and some it could be converted to assembler in the
> The assembly definitions for the operators are only useful if you have
> gcc-like inline assembly. Otherwise, the explicit register loads will
> make it worse.
I believe that Code Composer provides very good support for inline assembly,
although I have not used it myself, and hope not to.
>> 2) Proper definitions for the speex types are required in the
>> file - I did this and you can enable it via a __C55X__ definition. File
>> attached. My definition follows the convention of other defines in this
>> file. It could be covered by the C55X_ASM define above, but the content
>> this file is not going to have assembler in it. I leave it up to you if
>> think this is wrong or right - just tell me and I'll follow!
> I didn't include the C5x in speex_types.h because I was under the
> impression that autoconf would be used, but I can add it.
Unless there is some reason to do otherwise, it seems like all C55x specific
options should be turned on by one flag. This can be decided after the
current issues have been investigated further.
>> 3) There seem to be further int/long on a C55X issues in nb_celp.c for
>> nb_encoder_ctl and nb_decoder_ctl functions. I think that all the
>> (*(int*)ptr) or *((int*)ptr) should be (*(long*)ptr) for a C55X. I don't
>> know why. What I presume was happening was that the data passed to the
>> function in void *ptr was being lost in the upper or lower half of a
>> word. So it didn't matter what you passed as a setting for
>> and SPEEX_SET_COMPLEXITY, the (*(int*)ptr) always = 0. For quality this
>> doesn't matter I don't think due to the default settings, but the
>> st->complexity always ended up as zero, and the decoded bit-stream ends
>> sounding very ropy.
> Actually, I don't see why long/int would be a problem here since you're
> also passing an (int*) and the values are never higher than 32767.
This suggests that the problem is in the calling routine.
>> I think this the issue Jim alluded to in his question 2
>> regarding 'artifacts'. I don't think it was artifacts but perhaps this
>> I have described. In nb_celp.c I changed all those effected (*(int*)ptr)
>> long, but perhaps it would be better to have a more platform independant
>> resolution? Does ptr need to be a void *? Can't we use an int * or,
>> still, one of the nice Speex types so we know what we are expecting to
>> arrive at the function?
> It has to be a (void*) because the type is not always int. Some calls
> use floats, some even use a struct.
As indicated above, the inline functions cured the step and impulse
artifacts. I will test the control calls later.
>> I can make the changes and submit, I just want to
>> know how best to do a platform independant change. (I attach my nb_celp.c
>> for Jim and just so you can see what I did). Jim: Note that this will
>> your MIPS up again as now the encode is actually doing a decent job on
>> decoding - I think this was the reason for the huge performance increase.
> I don't see what you're talking about.
I think that Stuart is refering to the big jump in MIPs I saw between the
C54x and C55x DSPs. I have not sorted that out yet. I would like to take a
look at why Stuart's inline functions change the results, since there is a
significant performance penalty in using them.
>> 4) Jamie's CONFIG_TI_C55X definition doesn't seem to work for me.
>> Whenever I
>> compile using this option, I get a "Buffer too small to apck bits" and
>> "Could not resize input buffer: not packing" messages. I haven't had time
>> figure out what that means or what causes it, but will if I get time.
> I just fixed a but in bits.c (see Jim's previous email), maybe that was
> the cause.
Yes, that's right. speex_bits_insert_terminator keeps calling
speex_pack_bits forever, because bitPtr never reaches 15. Eventually the
bit buffer runs out of room.
>> 5) Re: stack memory allocations, yes, a compile-time option would be
>> to reduce the stack sizes. Ideally what is needed is the minimum stack
>> so that us embedded developers can support streaming audio, for either
>> compression or decompression. For nb mode, for example, this would mean
>> receiving a 160 byte raw data frame, compressing and storing or sending,
>> then dealing with the next frame. This is my opinion anyway, and I think
>> this usage model is a good target model to keep in mind during
>> For an embedded system it is likely that developers would do only
>> compression, or only decompression in their application, so splitting the
>> encoder and decoder into seperate files would also be a good idea in the
> I might add an option to disable the decoder or the encoder, but a lot
> of the common code will still be there. BTW, have you tried removing the
> preprocessor, the echo canceller and the jitter buffer if you want to
> save space?
>> Whether you'll want all that stuff put
>> back into the main Speex release I don't know, but if you do that is fine
>> with me too.
> Unless it's really ugly, I don't see why it couldn't go in the main
> Jean-Marc Valin <Jean-Marc.Valin at USherbrooke.ca>
> Université de Sherbrooke
> Speex-dev mailing list
> Speex-dev at xiph.org
More information about the Speex-dev