f00fc0d3

5 ms·

1.
by f00fc0d3 10y ago
Ceva DSP is almost same story about compiler. They used to have GCC2.95 glued to their proprietary backend, 33% of compilations results in crash :-). They got better by going to GCC4.4, but still use crazy licensing. But other DSP cores are
2.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I am doing baseband SW in tier1 vendor, and we have no processes, crappy tools (maybe you consider git and clang a crappy tool?) and don't give a flying f##k about management. ...and
3.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
>That's just to the base station, no? How does that in any way apply to what you transmit over your network? We are talking about ENB here, core LTE network is already virtualized. >Because your comment about latency implied that
4.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Yep, AVX is nice, but still it is far from current DSP chips. I ported a subset of PHY to real AVX2 CPU and AVX512 sim. It is (sometimes) comparable to c6x (which is a crap DSP) if you take (much) higher clock into account, but comparing to
5.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Future standards will be even more tight, 5G working assumption is 1 ms HARQ loop. Where you got the idea that I assume the ENB has to be on other side of the world ?
6.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
I have seen such projects - real LTE PHY algorithms are much more complex than stuff in 3GPP. You can write something 3GPP compliant in some simplified cases, but it would be totally useless in real network. Secondly you don't really
7.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
HARQ loop in LTE is tight = 3 ms(3ms for ENB, 3ms for UE, 2 ms for air/RRH = 8 ms in total). It means that in those 3 ms you need to decode ack nacks in PHY, run scheduling and then send the data on other side of PHY. LTE PHY requires
8.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
This is totally wishful thinking. No one in industry has a slightest idea what 5G will be. We keep throwing fancy terms like eNodeB virtualization and then we have a reality check - LTE userplane cannot be virtualized due latency and perfo
9.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
It is exactly the same what is happening to Nokia Networks. What saves them is fact that mobile networks market is pretty much closed and there is very high barrier of entry. If the market would be more open (patents!) - Nokia wouldn't
10.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
c6x has 8-bit bytes.
11.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Yeah, but you still need to write those maxi, maxd :-(
12.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Template metaprograming is nonsense, not simple type substitution. C++ templates are just too much, especially when mixed with substandard developers.
13.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Typeof is not standard and many DSP compilers do not implement that. Secondly I meant max search in array, not between to scalar values which is trivial. I really don't want to have for(...) inlined everywhere.
14.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
C99 is nice, but C still lacks generic. I am not talking about C++ template nonsense, but not having to write max element search for every primitive type. I am working in DSP project which was started with typical C++ OO BS, finally with en
15.
by f00fc0d3 11y ago
Beginning of the end of Nokia Networks. Looks like they dont have any clue what to do. ALU enodeb is crap, Nokia ancient Flexi is crap and their new stuff will be crap if they will manage to sell this to somebody :-)