On Friday 30 November 2007, Dave Robillard wrote:
[...]
> I do agree we should not be adding crufty features to support
> massive buffers, if that's what you mean. It's easier to just split
> the cycle anyway.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Sure, one *could* have a use for
really huge buffers (say, running large FFTs without intermediate
buffering), but to me, that seems too far out that one should have
everyone deal with 32:32 event timestamps for that reason alone.
[...cache footprint, buffers etc...]
> A clever host can just use the same, say, 2 buffers (stereo audio),
I'm assuming any serious host implementation does that, but that
doesn't help when some plugins are using more than 1-2 audio inputs.
Even so, it shouldn't really be an issue unless huge buffers - like
>=65536 samples - are used.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.------- http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples -------.
| http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine |
| http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine |
| http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting |
'-- http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation --'
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Nov 30 08:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 08:15:02 EET