New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like or ) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 1361 link

Starred by 19 users

Issue metadata

Status: Available
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 3
Type: Enhancement

Show other hotlists

Hotlists containing this issue:

Sign in to add a comment

Remove constraints due to legacy bit-exactness

Project Member Reported by, Feb 1 2013

Issue description

There are currently a number of places in the code for NetEq4 where odd things are implemented in order to maintain bit-exactness with NetEQ 3. These should eventually be removed. When that happens, we have to generate new reference output vectors for the bit-exactness unit tests.

This includes:
- Remove size constraint on PacketBuffer.
- Simplify calculations in BackgroundNoise::IncrementEnergyThreshold().
- Remove restriction on sample rate in PostDecodeVad.
- Look for all places where the #define LEGACY_BITEXACT is used. These indicate places where the code has been altered away from “the expected” to something more peculiar, in order to maintain bit-exactness.

Project Member

Comment 1 by, Feb 1 2013

Project Member

Comment 2 by, Aug 27 2013

Labels: Dev-QAReview-NA
Project Member

Comment 3 by, Sep 10 2013

Project Member

Comment 4 by, Oct 14 2013

Labels: Pri-3
Project Member

Comment 5 by, Oct 14 2013

Labels: -Pri-3 Pri-2

Comment 6 Deleted

Comment 7 Deleted

Project Member

Comment 8 by, Dec 4 2013

Labels: Area-SignalProcessing
Project Member

Comment 9 by, Dec 4 2013

Labels: hotlist-neteq-14Q1
Project Member

Comment 10 by, Mar 4 2014

Labels: neteq
Project Member

Comment 11 by, Mar 5 2014

Labels: -Pri-2 Pri-1
Project Member

Comment 12 by, Mar 5 2014

Project Member

Comment 13 by, Oct 30 2014

Labels: EngTriaged IceBox
Project Member

Comment 14 by, Nov 4 2015

This bug hasn't been modified for more than a year. Is this still a valid open issue?
Project Member

Comment 15 by, Nov 5 2015

Labels: -hotlist-neteq4 -hotlist-neteq-14Q1
Still valid and open.
Project Member

Comment 16 by, Jul 1 2016

Components: -SignalProcessing Audio
Labels: -Pri-1 Pri-3
Project Member

Comment 17 by, Jul 8 2016

The following revision refers to this bug:

commit 108ecec51ce5d55bcbe455f7a1cb778dd3cb2b22
Author: ossu <>
Date: Fri Jul 08 15:45:18 2016

Removed LEGACY_BITEXACT from and updated the ACM unit tests.

I'll be rewriting AcmReceiver soon and am trying to reduce the amount of
old stuff that needs to be supported.

I've manually checked the outputs of the AcmReceiver bitexactness
tests with this change. A large part of the tests are still bitexact,
with one section only differing slightly in timings. Nothing audible
unless playing the old and new versions back simultaneously.

The output of NetEqDecoderTest were also changed due to this CL, although only on android. I built and ran the test locally and compared the audio output manually - the changes were the same as for the other tests; i.e. very slight timing changes for a part of the output.

I updated the network stats checksum for android without analyzing it further. I expect it goes hand-in-hand with the changes to the output; i.e. the changes in it are fine because the audio output is fine. Likely, the stats will show changes in the usage of CNG, since that is what the code changes.


Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#13415}


Comment 19 Deleted

Project Member

Comment 20 by, Jan 22 2018

[bulk-edit] This bug is in status Available and has an Owner... This should be corrected. Can the owner please remove themselves from the bug if they are not working on it to make it truly Available, or change the status to reflect the actual state of the bug?
Project Member

Comment 21 by, Aug 20

[bulk-edit: Please ignore if N/A] This issue has status Available but at the same time it's got an Owner -- which is a contradiction of terms. Can the owner please either update the status to reflect the actual state of affairs (e.g. Assigned/Started if the work is planned/ongoing, or Untriaged if the issue is still under investigation or needs a new investigation, etc.), or alternatively remove themselves as Owner.
I need the owner to remove the bug

Sign in to add a comment