On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 14:09 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:21 +0200, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> > Krzysztof Foltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Lars Luthman wrote:
> > >
> > >> non-standard hacks in a specification. But with the current event header
> > >> proposal we don't have a pointer _or_ a flexible array member in it, so
> > >> this discussion is sort of pointless.
> > >
> > > So, basically, we have a choice between:
> > >
> > > struct LV2_EVENT_HEADER_LLKF
> > > {
> > > uint32_t timestamp; // 16:16
> > > uint16_t payload_size;
> > > uint16_t event_type;
> > > };
>
> Might as well break the time stamp into two separate uint16_t's and make
> life easy.Agreed. Most plugins won't care about the fractional part. The only drawback I can think of is that on a platform that aligns struct members to 32 bits you won't be able to load the complete timestamp as a uint32_t without some shifting and |ing, but that will probably be a special case anyway. Having the timestamp as two separate members makes everything completely self-documented. > Please, please let this silly 'type of the data member' angle of > conversation die... :) > > Hereby humbly requesting that: > > // data follows here > > be the last thing in the event struct for the purposes of this > conversation, since it's irrelevant and not a point of debate Agreed. --ll
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
