On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 19:32 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Saturday 01 December 2007, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:23 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> > > On Friday 30 November 2007, Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> > > [...several points that I totally agree with...]
> > > > If you use integers, perhaps the timestamps should be stored as
> > > > delta values.
> > >
> > > That would seem to add complexity with little gain, though I
> > > haven't really thought hard about that...
> >
> > It does have the significant advantage of eliminating the hard upper
> > bound on the range of time that can be present in a buffer (and with
> > 'null' events, eliminates any such limit entirely, ala SMF). More
> > annoying to work with though..
>
> Yeah; someone has to add the "null" events, and the delta nature of
> it, obviously. You could hide that in event handling
> calls/macros/inlines of course, but still...
Yeah, unless there's some compelling cases where splitting the cycle has
a negative side effect, not worth it.
-DR-
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Dec 2 00:15:04 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 02 2007 - 00:15:04 EET