2007/11/8, Nedko Arnaudov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thursday 08 November 2007, Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > > [...] > >> There were rumors in #lad that such functionality may be useful > >> without lv2dynparam extension. > > > > Well, yes; real time safe dynamic memory management can make life a > > lot easier for some types of plugins, and/or reduce memory > > requirements by having a shared pool. However, I think it needs to be > > more generic than just a pool of fixed size chunks for the "shared > > pool" part to be viable. > > Point is whether arbitrary and fixed chunk allocators be in one > extension. I tend to think that they should be separate because > algorythms behind them are quite different and host may choose to > implement only one of them. Also most lock free algorithms are patented > so this can be point of host supporting only one feature set.
I do totally agree. Stefano D'Angelo _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
