At Mon, 03 Feb 2003 09:49:59 -0500,
Paul Davis wrote:
>
> >> To be explicit: whenever you see a bug, don't just
> >> ask how to fix this instance of the bug; ask what
> >> it would take to make sure no bug of this ilk ever
> >> occurs again.
> >>
> >> In this case:
> >> a) It would help to ha
>> To be explicit: whenever you see a bug, don't just
>> ask how to fix this instance of the bug; ask what
>> it would take to make sure no bug of this ilk ever
>> occurs again.
>>
>> In this case:
>> a) It would help to have some comments in the code
>> saying where the constants are coming f
At Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:28:41 -0500,
John S. Denker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > (btw, i used 4 instead of sizeof(int) because the latter might not be
> > always equal with 32bit (in future) :)
>
> Certainly assuming sizeof(int)==4 is unwise.
> But using "4" isn't the
At Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:37:46 -0500,
Paul Davis wrote:
>
> i don't know how we ended up with such incorrect values for the
> period/buffer size limits, but this corrects them. this previously
> prevented applications from requesting a period size of 8192
> frames. an identical patch is needed for th
i don't know how we ended up with such incorrect values for the
period/buffer size limits, but this corrects them. this previously
prevented applications from requesting a period size of 8192
frames. an identical patch is needed for the hdsp driver. i'll post
one tomorrow if jaroslav or takashi don
