[Tremor] changes for subversion

[Monty]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:29:35PM -0400, Ball, Rick wrote:
> Hi Monty/Pete, 
> 
> I'm new to the list, but I've been browsing the archives to try to
> understand what's going on with this project.  I have a few
> questions/comments:
> 
> What's the status of Pete's c55x port?  I'm looking at doing a c55x port
> myself, and I'd be interested in collaborating.

I honestly don't know.  I'd have to go back into the archives to see
where things left off (hopefully not waiting on me for something...)

> I diff'ed the lowmem and lowmem-nobyte branches and found that the only
> thing that appears nobyte-specific is the stuff in bitwise.c, the rest
> of the changes seem to be minor updates to either the lowmem or nobyte
> branches that really apply to both - is this accurate?  If so, it might
> be easier to maintain if we eliminate the nobyte branch and just add
> some ifdefs in lowmem.  

There should also be some changes in the codebook handling as the
stock codebook code operated on byte vectors IIRC.  I'm a bit rusty on
that branch, it's possible both version just went to using packed
integers.

Nobyte is probably not really generally useful... Tremor was always
meant to be a starting point for porting and the specific word-width
requirements of different DSPs are all over the map.

> Also, what's the answer to Pete's question about getting changes into
> SVN?  I like the idea of putting the 64-bit and alloca (and probably 16
> vs. 32 bit int) changes into the latest version, since most people (at
> least those working with TI DSPs) will want the changes, and they can be
> done such that they don't hurt other people.  I saw Monty's comment
> about Tremor being a starting point rather than a finished project, but
> it would be nice to make it the best starting point possible for the
> largest number of people.

Agreed.  If you only expect cahnges to be occasional, I can do
commits... OTOH, I see no reason not to hand you SVN write access if
you want it.

Monty