On Monday 07 March 2011 17:09:17 Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> On Monday 07 March 2011 15:37:48 Christopher Cherrett wrote:
> > We were sending so much at LS so fast that the program changes were
> > becoming lost from the banks.
> >
> > By merging them we were able to keep them together long enough to
> > process the extreme amount of data being passed.
>
> You noticed a difference in performance / drops when using just one merged
> parameter instead of two? Or was that a guess?
Maybe there was a misapprehension. I was not asking about the sense of the
whole patch per se. I understand that this makes sense. I was just asking
about a detail in the patch:
- void EngineChannel::ExecuteProgramChange(uint8_t Program) {
- dmsg(1,("Received MIDI program change (prog=%d)\n",Program));
+ void EngineChannel::ExecuteProgramChange(uint32_t Program) {
+ uint8_t hb = (Program >> 16) & 0xff;
+ uint8_t lb = (Program >> 8) & 0xff;
+ uint8_t pc = Program & 0x7f;
+ dmsg(1,("Received MIDI program change (msb=%d) (lsb=%d) (prog=%d)\n",
hb, lb, pc));
My question was, if there was a reason why you havent used 2 method parameters
here, instead of "uint32_t Program" with bank select merged in. It would just
be a bit cleaner IMO.
CU
Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details
its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative
solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d
_______________________________________________
Linuxsampler-devel mailing list
Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
