Quoting Abramo Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The results are amazing and I'd say Jaroslav has done some mistakes in > his handmade asm. >
This may be true, but I think you're trying to be a little too quick yourself. Did you *test* your code? I only had time to take a short glance at it, but too me it seems that this is not the correct check for overflow on signed numbers: > if (unlikely(sample & 0xffff0000)) > s = sample > 0 ? 0x7fff : -0x8000; > else > s = sample; I noticed it because this is the first thought I had, but it only works for unsgined. Notice that -1 will be 0xffffffff in a 32 bit sample. So your code will "saturate" all negative samples to -8000 effectively killing half of the wave, the way a diode does. I'm pretty sure this would not sound good ;-). Still, even if you change this to two normal ifs I assume the speed will not be affected by an order of magnitude. Secondly, the test code is hardly a good representation of our "working" environment because we're expecting multiple processes to write concurrently to the buffer. I think you sholud have a "verification" procedure which carefully mixes the waves one by one and then the n test mixes should be run in m processes concurrently. And the result compared to the "verification" table. -------------- Fycio (J.Sobierski) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
