Chris Cannam a écrit :
Yes, indeed, but a couple of times here I've seen observations that a
vector would compile to an array if optimisation was on, etc. Since
we're mostly using gcc-3.3+ now, I wanted to ask if anyone is sure
whether that's really true.
Since a vector is a wrapped C
Jan Holst Jensen wrote:
--- Clemens Ladisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any standard ioctl() calls in the
No, but this would be a very good idea for testing
purposes. I'll add a hwdep device for this.
Great. Looking forward to that. But until then, my
best shot is hacking the
Jan Depner:
I was under the impression that there was bounds checking going on with
vectors. Is this not the case?
Nope.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was under the impression that there was bounds checking going on with
vectors. Is this not the case?
Not necesserally: if you are using operator (), yes, if you use operator
[], no.
David
On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:46, Chris Cannam wrote:
Jan Depner:
I was under the impression that there was bounds checking going on with
vectors. Is this not the case?
Nope.
As far as I know the [] is not checked. but at() is...
Arnold
--
There is a theory which states that if ever
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:29:21 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Asbjørn Sæbø) wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:20:18AM -0500, Jack O'Quin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Asbjørn Sæbø) writes:
[...]
* If given a real-time kernel, what else is necessary to take advantage
of its capabilities?
Hi Asbjørn!
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:59:39PM +0200, Asbjørn Sæbø wrote:
This is, I know, slightly off-topic for this group, as it does not deal
with audio per se. It does, however, deal with the
real-time/preemptible Linux kernel, for which I think most of the
expertice is gathered
David Cournapeau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was under the impression that there was bounds checking going on with
vectors. Is this not the case?
Not necesserally: if you are using operator (), yes, if you use operator
[], no.
I think you are all guessing.
At least
On 6/9/05, Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was under the impression that there was bounds checking going on with
vectors. Is this not the case?
Not necesserally: if you are using operator (), yes, if you
No, I am not. I cannot find the information on the C++ faq right now,
but If m pretty sure that it is written in the book of Stroustrup.
Of course, once I press the send button, I find the relevant webpage:
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd_tour2.pdf (page 9 of the pdf)
3.7.2 Range
Howdy,
I am currently trying to get two HDSPM cards working with ALSA and JACK. I can
use each card individually from each other using -Dhw:0 or -Dhw:1. However I
need to get both cards to look like one card for a program that we are
developing in house. From what I have read I need either a
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:31:35PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
_Z6vectorSt6vectorIiSaIiEE:
.LFB539:
.L2:
.L7:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl%esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
popl%ebp
ret
you've been bitten by the optimizer, this function does
nothing but return (nothing).
On 6/9/05, stefan kersten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:31:35PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
_Z6vectorSt6vectorIiSaIiEE:
.LFB539:
.L2:
.L7:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl%esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
popl%ebp
ret
Well, that's what
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:41 , David Cournapeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
On 6/9/05, stefan kersten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 10:31:35PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
_Z6vectorSt6vectorIiSaIiEE:
.LFB539:
.L2:
.L7:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl%esp,
Martin Habets [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The RT limits solution implemented by some kernel folks puts a limit on
the percentage of cpu time consumed by these processes, so other stuff
should get some time to run as well.
To clarify: there *was* an experimental patch like this created six
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:41:00PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
The other problem is [] as efficient for vector and plain
c array ?
possibly maybe:
#include vector
int access(int* v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
produces
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 18:14 +0200, stefan kersten wrote:
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
At least you are making copy here, should be
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
--
Jussi Laako [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include vector
int access(int* v, int i)
{=20
return v[i];
}=20
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
ahem. pass by reference vs. pass by value?
On Thursday 09 Jun 2005 20:07, stefan kersten wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:39:21PM +0300, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 18:14 +0200, stefan kersten wrote:
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
At least you are making copy here, should be
int access(std::vectorint v, int
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:23:57PM +0100, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Thursday 09 Jun 2005 20:07, stefan kersten wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:39:21PM +0300, Jussi Laako wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 18:14 +0200, stefan kersten wrote:
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
At least you
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 09:47 -0400, Fred Gleason wrote:
[regarding writing full apps in asm]
Today however, I think it'd be a foolish choice. Modern systems have orders
of magnitude more processing power, and it'd be silly to devote 10x the time
developing an assembly-based version of
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:39:21PM +0300, Jussi Laako wrote:
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
At least you are making copy here, should be
int access(std::vectorint v, int i)
No such problem with
int access(int *v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
:-) :-) :-)
On Thursday 09 Jun 2005 23:16, fons adriaensen wrote:
int access(int *v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
Of course, passing that pointer by value is horribly inefficient.
int access(int *const v, int i)
{
return v[i];
}
Chris
I have started writing my first jack application.
It's a simple combination of the qfileiconview example and jack.play (is that
a homage to ms?). Users of that OS might recognise the concept. It's a
FastWav2 clone.
It's very early days so this is untested but worked far so fine for me. I am
not
24 matches
Mail list logo
