[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
> My host has one-to-many audio connections.
>
> i.e. [synth]--->[effect1]
> \-----[effect2]
>
> to be clear: one plugin produces one output buffer, which is fed to two
> downstream plugins.
> If effect1 chooses to process-in-place, that implies it's input buffer is
> overwritten.
Right. So only one of them can process it in place, correct? The other
effect has to NOT do in-place processing.
> And if your reply is "the host can just duplicate the input buffer".
>
> Think long and hard before you say that, bearing in mind your original
> reason for batton-passing (to avoid buffer copying).
No matter what, only one plugin can process in-place. The other has to have
a new buffer. No matter what. So the cost is a memcpy(). If avoiding that
scenario hurts too much, you can flag them as read-only and force the plugs
to use a new buffer for output. Or you can flag one as read-only and
enforce (in your host) that the in-place plug (non-read-only) run last (but
that is pretty ugly).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place
- » [gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging, Process-In-Place