On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 03:15 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> 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.
The current version of LV2 MIDI just uses double. All the precision you
could ask for, or an insane range if you'd prefer. It's a bit big
maybe, but hey, why not?
We could use float I guess to save a bit of space, but I definitely
prefer floating point. Fixed point is just a PITA, modern CPUs are much
faster at FP anyway, why bother?
-DR-
_______________________________________________
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 08:15:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 08:15:03 EET