[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Common ACELP code & G.729 [3/7] - vectors operations
Vladimir Voroshilov
voroshil
Sun May 18 08:23:20 CEST 2008
2008/5/18 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 01:39:42AM +0700, Vladimir Voroshilov wrote:
>> 2008/5/18 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
>> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:25:05PM +0700, Vladimir Voroshilov wrote:
>> >> 2008/5/14 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
>> >> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:08:01AM +0700, Vladimir Voroshilov wrote:
>> >> >> 2008/5/12 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
>> >> >> > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 09:46:04PM +0700, Vladimir Voroshilov wrote:
>> >> >> > > 2008/5/9 Vladimir Voroshilov <voroshil at gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > Hm. I hope, this version is better..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > there are still 2 seperate functions and now there are even wraper functions
>> >> >> > this is not better IMHO.
>> >> >> > see my example above, is there a problem with it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Already implemented yours routine.
>> >> >> Now i should remove those wrappers,
>> >> >> make common routine non-static and
>> >> >> use it in main loop, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > yes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > +/**
>> >> >> > > + * low-pass FIR (Finite Impulse Response) filter coefficients
>> >> >> > > + *
>> >> >> > > + * A similar filter is named b30 in G.729.
>> >> >> > > + *
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> >> > Maybe the generic interpolation should be in a seperate file.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Move it back to acelp_filters together with corresponding lookup tables?
>> >> >
>> >> > yes, it seems o fit better there
>> >>
>> >> Attached patch is version with removed interpolation filter.
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> +void ff_acelp_4pulses_13_21_bits(
>> >> + int16_t* fc_v,
>> >> + int fc_index,
>> >> + int pulses_signs,
>> >> + int bits)
>> >> +{
>> >> + int mask = (1 << bits) - 1;
>> >> + int i, index;
>> >> +
>> >> + for(i=0; i<3; i++)
>> >> + {
>> >> + index = i + 5 * (fc_index & mask);
>> >> + fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192; // +/-1 in (2.13)
>> >> +
>> >> + fc_index >>= bits;
>> >> + pulses_signs >>= 1;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + index = 3 + (fc_index & 1) + 5 * ((fc_index>>1) & mask);
>> >> + fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +void ff_acelp_fc_2pulses_9bits_g729d(
>> >> + int16_t* fc_v,
>> >> + int fc_index,
>> >> + int pulses_signs)
>> >> +{
>> >> + int index;
>> >> +
>> >> + index = ((5 * gray_decode[fc_index & 15]) >> 1) + 1;
>> >> + fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192; // +/-1 in (2.13)
>> >> +
>> >> + pulses_signs >>= 1;
>> >> + fc_index >>= 4;
>> >> +
>> >> + index = fc_2pulses_9bits_track2[gray_decode[fc_index & 31]];
>> >> + fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192; // +/-1 in (2.13)
>> >> +}
>> >
>> > duplicate
>> >
>> > My suggestion for the third time:
>> >
>> >> > > >> for(i=0; i<pulse_count; i++){
>> >> > > >> index = i + tab[fc_index & mask];
>> >> > > >> fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192;
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> fc_index >>= bits;
>> >> > > >> pulses_signs >>= 1;
>> >> > > >> }
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> index = tab2[fc_index];
>> >> > > >> fc_v[ index ] += pulses_signs ? 8191 : -8192;
>> >
>> > Or is there some reason why you do not use this? So far you didnt say
>> > why not IIRC.
>>
>> Did you see that second one is using gray decoding when first is not?
>> Or you mean restoring "5*i" tables, one with gray coding and one
>> without (you asked
>> me to remove such tables some time ago)
>> and pass them (as long as fc_2pulses_9bits_track2 table) via parameters?
>
> yes, that was the idea, i think that the 50 bytes or so of tables extra
> are better than the near duplicated function.
> And sorry for the back and forward, it wasnt clear to me that the silly
> 5*i table would allow the code to be sigificantly simplified.
What about such uniform routine?
.h:
enum fc_codings(fcmode0, fcmode1,fcmode2,bla bla);
fc_acelp_fc_decode(int16_t* fc, int fc_index, int pulses, int coding);
.c:
fc_acelp_fc_decode(int16_t* fc, int fc_index, int pulses, int coding)
{
uint8_t * tab;
uint8_t * tab2;
int gray,bits,pulse_count,i,mask, index;
switch(coding)
{
case fcmode0:
gray=0;
bits=3;
pulse_count=3;
tab = fcmode1_tab1;
tab2 = fcmode1_tab2;
break;
case fcmode1:
gray=0;
bits = 4;
pulse_count=3;
tab = fcmode1_tab1;
tab2 = fcmode1_tab2;
break;
case fcmode2:
gray=1;
bits = 4;
pulse_count=1;
tab = fcmode2_tab1;
tab2 = fcmode2_tab2;
break;
}
mask = (1<<bits) - 1;
for(i=0; i<pulse_count; i++){
index = fc_index & mask;
if(gray) index = gray_decode[index];
index = i + tab[index];
fc_v[ index ] += (pulses_signs & 1) ? 8191 : -8192;
fc_index >>= bits;
pulses_signs >>= 1;
}
index = fc_index;
if(gray) index = gray_decode[index];
index = tab2[fc_index];
fc_v[ index ] += pulses_signs ? 8191 : -8192;
}
--
Regards,
Vladimir Voroshilov mailto:voroshil at gmail.com
JID: voroshil at gmail.com, voroshil at jabber.ru
ICQ: 95587719
More information about the ffmpeg-devel
mailing list