Hi, and thanks for the feedback.
>My own gut feeling on this is that you'd be better off figuring out
>how to do this in the context of Faust, which already does a important
>subset of what you are describing, though notably without (I think)
>the LLVM part.
Surely a contribution to the discussion by the Faust people would
be welcome; and even more than to the discussion :->. By the way, they
do something with LLVM, but i do not know exactly what (Faust is included
in the list of projects using LLVM).
I think the interest, if any, would be in having a *low* level
library generic enough to be used by multiple applications, so
to factor the work. It may be that an existing project have internally
a large part of the needed code, though.
>Note also that hosts which run plugins at the level of LADSPA/LV2,
>VST, AU, DSSI etc are unlikely to be easy candidates for any
>cross-plugin optimization.
I was actually talking about two different context, reusing existing
binaries, and having cross plugin optimisations for native plugins.
But, if the plugins are compiled with a different compilation chain
(using the LLVM compiler producing LLVM byte code, so introducing a different
binary format for them), than cross plugin optimisation is possible also for
existing plugins like a LADSPA plugin.
Would that be worthwhile ? Difficult to know for sure, but it is an interesting
subject to explore.
Maurizio
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Dec 6 16:15:09 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 06 2010 - 16:15:09 EET