Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: [TTS-In-Core] Status report
Re: [TTS-In-Core] Status report
From: Rafaël Carré <rafael.carre_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:57:42 +0200
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:46:58 +0100
Delyan Kratunov <delyan.kratunov_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Mike Giacomelli
> Fragmentation is can be dealt with by freeing and reiniting
> everything like
> > we do
> > for codecs on track change.
> > This is ugly, but for something like voice which is probably only
> > active for 10
> > or 20 seconds and then shuts down for several minutes or more, its
> > probably not that
> > big a deal. It'll be annoying to implement but the time average
> > overhead will be
> > quite small.
> I was planning on doing that anyway. It's the fragmentation
> *during*synthesis that's massive as it is. In one extreme case I
> mapped out about
> 700 allocations of 12-byte structs (I was tracking them in
> particular). That was just the initial steps, about 300 more memory
> operations before the final cleanup. Sure, that was a synthetic case
> and it's impossible to arise from any text in the English language
> but nevertheless it shows the issue clearly. The speed was well below
> 0.5x realtime.
> I realize it is kinda late in the program now but I wouldn't mind
> switching to eSpeak. It's been proven to work, it's usable in theory,
> v1.26 should be portable in practice. I was really hoping I could
> fight it off with flite but what needs to be done is way over my head.
> Regarding eSpeak, I just need to know what the situation with the
> licenses is. In particular, can I use the code in the Flyspray issue
> or is that strictly GPLv3? The patch is based on v1.28, so I'm in
> dark waters here, I don't know how it works.
> This is all if I'm allowed to switch targets, of course.
Any progress on eSpeak or flite ?
Don't hesitate to ask for help on mailing list or irc
-- ✍ Rafaël Carré ☺