Note that your examples does the actual computation once per block. To test the CPU, its better to have lut1/lut2 runs each sample, using something like:
process = _ <: (lut1 : hbargraph("B", 1, 5)) (lut2 : hbargraph("C", 1, 5)); Assuming you have installed faust locally, you can then use faustbench of faustbench-lvm tools to measure CPU usage, see: https://github.com/grame-cncm/faust/tree/master-dev/tools/benchmark#faustbench https://github.com/grame-cncm/faust/tree/master-dev/tools/benchmark#faustbench-llvm Stéphane > Le 13 janv. 2022 à 19:05, Jean-Louis Paquelin <jean-lo...@paquelin.net> a > écrit : > > @James and @bart, thank you for your quick reply. > > So (if I understand you well) pattern matching should be thought of as a > static rewriting tool. > And, btw, you're right > process = 2 : lut : hbargraph("B", 1, 5); > sets the bargraph to 2, while > process = lut(2) : hbargraph("B", 1, 5); > sets it to 3 (as expected). > > I came with 2 ways to write the lut() function I need: > > lut1(n) = 1,3,4,2,5 : ba.selectn(5, n - 1); > lut2(n) = ((n == 1) | (n == 5)) * n + (n == 2) * 3 + (n == 3) * 4 + (n == 4) > * 2; > process = hslider("A", 1, 1, 5, 1) <: (lut1 : hbargraph("B", 1, 5)), (lut2 : > hbargraph("C", 1, 5)); > > Both functions seem to provide the service I'm asking for. But the first one > is more readable than the second. > Any idea which one is the lightest for the CPU? > > Thanks again, > > jlp _______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list Faudiostream-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users