Steve Harris wrote: >On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:03:42 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: >> >Not if it generates machine code. That way, it could (theoretically) >> >> in realtime? we'll need everybodies' spare cpu cycles! > >No, it really isn't that slow. > >SyncModular does a similar trick.
it'd still be interesting to know how the sync problems this method poses are solved: you cannot rely on executable code modifications to be atomic. an indirect jump instruction is not guaranteed to work ok: a pointer on x86 is 32 bits, and atomic is 24 bits (besides, indirect jumps have ill influence on the cache). could do this with branching though -- but you don't want your dsp code interspersed with volatile if()s. tim
