On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 14:13 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi wrote:
> Okay, I wrote such a test. It fails with Jack's ringbuffer (jack1 r3004) but
> succeeds with Portaudio's one (r1240).
Nice work. Nobody ask why we didn't do this 5 years ago!
> The Portaudio code looks more and more robust to me. It's also surprisingly
> short. Maybe that the best would be to replace jack's ringbuffer with it? I
> think it should be possible to keep the jack_ringbuffer api unchanged.
I'd rather add the memory barriers to the JACK code, but this could be a
race to see who does what first. A memory barrier is typically single
instruction. The complication tends to be defining them in a
sufficiently portable way.
--p
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Fri Oct 17 16:15:02 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 17 2008 - 16:15:02 EEST