|:: Re: [Frei0r] api documentation|
|This message is part of the following thread:|
|the complete thread tree sorted by date|
|Dan Dennedy at|
> Also, it has been in git since July, 2015. But, perhaps for a low activity > mailing list, it might not be a bad idea to reflect commit messages to the > list?
> I agree. In the future I will submit big changes to the mailing > for review before commit. I ask for their to be a 10 day > expiration where no response means OK, and I will send a reminder > e-mail after one week if there was no response.
> To each C++ plugin, yes. The old frei0r.hpp C++ wrapper would > store the image buffer pointers on the object and access them > through those members. If there is more than one thread calling > the same f0r_update function the C++ wrapper classes will change > the image pointers of the first thread to that of the second > thread. The only value of this limiting statefulness was to give > C++ plugins a cuter, simpler update() method signature for their > implementation. After the change, the image pointers are moved > from the instance and onto the stack, and each thread's > f0r_update() is using thread-local pointers and not overwriting > each others' buffers.
> I am preparing a patch that will remove the extra input buffer > parameters from each C++ update() method, but it does add the > overhead of an additional method call plus some virtual function > lookups within the C++ wrapper.
|This message was posted to the following mailing lists:|
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages
|Re: [Frei0r] [PATCH] Remove extra input params from C++ update() methods.||Re: [Frei0r] [PATCH] Remove extra input params from C++ update() methods.|
|dyne.org open discussions |
administrated by dyne.org hackers
|Lurker (version 2.3)|