On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 12:09:59 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2003 23.07, Steve Harris wrote: > [...] > > > You might ove the conditionals around a bit depending on which > > > case you want to be the fastest, but I don't think it gets much > > > more fun than that. > > > > The are branchless clamps, which save a few cycles. > > Cool. Would your average compiler generate that kind of code from > clean if()s, or do you have to go SIMD? (I've only seen this in SIMD > extensions and DSPs before, but I'm not up to date with the "normal" > x86 or PPC instruction sets.)
Its not an instruction its just a bit of maths using fabs(). > Any wild ideas are welcome, of course! A bit of brainstorming never > hurts. Sure. [silence detection] > Besides, if you have seriously heavy plugins in combination with this > "a few effects at a time" behavior, the host could probably optimize > this a bit without plugins explicitly supporting it. It means the > host has to test buffers and figure out a clean way of activating and > deactivating plugins without side effects, but if the plugins, or > whole sub nets of plugins can be disabled, it's still a big win. > ...and doesn't require any API support whatsoever, apart from the > (de)activation stuff, which is needed anyway. You still have unpredicatable CPU load, which makes it pretty useless. - Steve
