[gmpi] Re: Reqs 5, 6, 11 for debate

  • From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:48:40 +0000

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:22:32AM -0500, RonKuper@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>
> Why? There is nothing that the DSP code for a plugin should be doing that
> would ever violate the requirements anyway. 
> <<<
> 
> If my plugin is a reverb, it will need memory for delay lines.  It will
> touch this memory while doing its DSP.  If this memory wasn't allocated as
> page locked, it could fault, and the plugin won't work.  (I think you are
> assuming that audio DSP won't be done in the RT context, that only
> signalling happens here?  My understanding is that audio DSP can and will be
> done in the RT context.)

Thats exactly the kind of thing Paul was talking about - if MS had looked
at how other people had implemented it they would have realised that this
isn't a sensible API.

Under Linux (and presumably OSX) you can just say "all future momory I
allocate from here should be page locked by default". Thus is becomes the
hosts responsibility, and the plugin doesnt have to care.

The practical upshot of that is that only plugins written in C(++) will
work under longhorn.

- 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:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2003