[gmpi] Re: Decision Time: 7.1.2
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
> There is no evidence that we need more than float on desktop CPUs, modulo
> high bit width dithering. I dont think that thats significant enough to
> warrant the extra complexity in all other plugins.
OK, and you agree we DO need to support Integer types? If we support 2
types, we support N types, in my book.
> Not if the profiles are linked to a CPU architecture. eg. all PPC and x86
> (or Alitvec and SSE if you want it at that granularity) plugins use the
> float profile, ARM uses int24. This could tie up the binary compatibility
> issue on multi platform OSs to.
I'm sorry to say this: GAG! We are the WRONG people to make decisions like
this.
> You cant just wrap it wihtout an emulator, those paltops aren't running x86.
Today they aren't. But some small systems ARE. And some of them have
pretty pathetic FPUs, even though they are x86. Think Cyrix, Geode, etc.
My main point is that IF we need to support more than one datatype (and by
the palmtop, it sounds as if we do) then we should support N datatypes.
If you don't want to support it in your host, DON'T. We don't need to
define a Float64 type for now. One day, almost certainly, we will. When
that day comes, it will be easy. Most hosts won't support it (yet). Many
NEVER will. Calling a datatype a profile, and forcing me to pick a
closest-fit is not a solution to the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
