[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8
- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:41:14 +0000
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 10:27:27 +0200, Jarmo.Hiipakka@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Alternatively, it would be possible to come up with another
> (derivative) specification for the fixed-point types. Other than the
> audio data, the framework would preferably be very similar to the one
> in GMPI. Then it should be possible to easily distinguish the plugins
> that use floating point data from the ones using integers, so that
> both could be easily supported under the same framework.
Yes, this is essentially the profiles idea - it seems like a better
option as float processing on systems with only sw float support is
impractical, but noone wants to use fixedpoint when you dont have to, so
one profile per processor class seems reasonable.
So, there are at least two people on the list who want and understand
fixedpoint requirements, is that enough to make a representative
requirements document? Is it enugh for the requirements to leave it open
and require a way of defining profiles?
- 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:
