[asterisk-users] Use the NEW ulaw/alaw codecs (slower, but cleaner)

[Steve Murphy]

On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0700, Wilton Helm wrote:
> I'm a bit puzzled, also, having implemented ulaw and alaw in an
> embedded application.  Each can be done with a 16 Kbyte table in about
> 0 time with no errors.  There are probably tricks that will cut the
> table down by 2 or 4 X for a small cost in CPU cycles.  The inverse
> requires 256 16 bit words.  I thought ulaw and alaw were pretty much
> no brainers.  I don't know of any gottchas.  Why anyone with more that
> a few K bytes of total system memory would even consider anything
> other than a lookup table is beyond me.
>  
> Wilton

Wilton--

AFAIK, the current algorithms (old & new) are indeed table lookup.
It wouldn't hurt for you to do a code review on them, you might
be able to improve them...!

murf

>  
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
-- 
Steve Murphy
Software Developer
Digium
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3227 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20081111/5663f876/attachment.bin