[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.1
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:58:45 -0400
>The only real argument I can see for supporting interleaved natively is
>if a plugin does hardware acceleration. Nearly all hardware deals
>pretty much exclusively with interleaved data,
what type of hardware are you thinking of? i can think of several
cases that would not use interleaved data, most notably anything
written to handle high channel counts rather than just stereo.
> so anything that does
>hardware accel would have to interleave/de-interleave to send to the
>hardware if only mono buffers are supported.
>
>If we don't care about hardware, then I would vote for strictly mono
>buffers.
we know that in certain situations, *something* will have to
{de,re}interleave data. the question is whether such situations are so
common that interleaved data should be part of the core a GMPI graph
or constrained to the internals of the leaf nodes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
