[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.1
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:57:12 +0100
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 09:19:35 +0200, David Olofson wrote:
> I like a), but I *think* c) could enable some performance improvement
> often enough to motivate the extra host side complexity. (I assume
> it's little more than a hint and hardwired code on the plugin side.)
>
> So, unless I'm proven wrong, I vote for c).
Will the possible performace benefit from c) outweight the cost of
swizzling for when its not the same in adjacent plugins? If interleaved
processing is unusual then the chances of having two adjacent interleaved
plugins is low, so why not just swizzle inside the plugin?
It would be reasonably simple for someone to test wether interleaved
buffers can be more efficient, it seems highly unlikly to me. I
suspect they are are only more efficient when the number of channels is a
multiple of four and the number of samples is a small, non-mutiple of four.
As soon as you have the possibility of unconnected inputs or outputs it
becomes hard to optimise in the interleaved case, for mono buffers its
trivial.
- Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
