Hi, and thanks for the feedback. >My own gut feeling on this is that you'd be better off figuring out >how to do this in the context of Faust, which already does a important >subset of what you are describing, though notably without (I think) >the LLVM part.
Surely a contribution to the discussion by the Faust people would be welcome; and even more than to the discussion :->. By the way, they do something with LLVM, but i do not know exactly what (Faust is included in the list of projects using LLVM). I think the interest, if any, would be in having a *low* level library generic enough to be used by multiple applications, so to factor the work. It may be that an existing project have internally a large part of the needed code, though. >Note also that hosts which run plugins at the level of LADSPA/LV2, >VST, AU, DSSI etc are unlikely to be easy candidates for any >cross-plugin optimization. I was actually talking about two different context, reusing existing binaries, and having cross plugin optimisations for native plugins. But, if the plugins are compiled with a different compilation chain (using the LLVM compiler producing LLVM byte code, so introducing a different binary format for them), than cross plugin optimisation is possible also for existing plugins like a LADSPA plugin. Would that be worthwhile ? Difficult to know for sure, but it is an interesting subject to explore. Maurizio _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
