[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8

  • From: <Jarmo.Hiipakka@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:35:00 +0200

> > 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.

What I actually meant was that one should be able to support float and
fixed-point data simultaneously. For reasons already clearly stated by
David Olofson, I also don't really like the idea of fixing the data 
type per processor class. The processor families develop so that float 
processing that now seems too heavy, may become more viable option 
later.

        BR,
        Jarmo Hiipakka

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jarmo Hiipakka, Research Engineer, 
  Nokia Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
  jarmo.hiipakka@xxxxxxxxx, +358 50 483 6538

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: