On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 05:06:29 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > Steve Harris wrote: > > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:08:01 +0100, Tim Goetze wrote: > >> it'd still be interesting to know how the sync problems this > >> method poses are solved: you cannot rely on executable code > > >By sync problemt do you mean loop latency? There not solved exactly its > > nope, i meant dynamic updates on a realtime (lock-free) > code path; it's an interesting problem with, afaict, no > obviously elegant solutions.
Argh! I was thinking of dumping the code and rebuilding (hopefully keeping the state). Doing it that way would be interesting, but much harder. Youd have to either use a lot of function calls or do some hard code relocation stuff I think. > >As you know the latency is one sample you can do intersting tricks with > >module placement and mixing. > > yeah, i agree it's the ideal method of processing. i'm not > convinced it would run anywhere as fast as block-based > processing though. cache effects are an argument (filter No, I imagine it will be noticably slower, however I think CPU's are getting to the kind of power where its feasable to use it for real. The dynamic compiliation will win you some speed back. I dont think the implementation is really that hard, the UI would be the most complex part, as always. Its kindof a pipedream anyway, as none of us has enough free time to tackle it at the moment. - Steve
