| It's not really that expensive to recopy opcodlst many times, especially
because it doesn't happen during performance.
Original Message:
-----------------
From: stevenyi stevenyi@csounds.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:06:49 -0500
To: csound-dev@eartha.mills.edu
Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:3985] Re: csound5 - oscbnk
Hi John and all,
Is it planned to also integrate the opcode libraries into a single
opcode lib, names something like csoundStandardLib.so ? Would it be a
bad idea to do so? Just seems like less opcode libs to load at runtime
the better because--as I understand it--when the opcodes from the plugin
libraries are appended to the opcodlst, it has to reallocate memory for
the oldlist plus the new opcodes coming in from the library, then copy
over the old list, and having to do that for multiple libraries I think
would be more expensive an operation that all at one shot. Please
correct me if I'm incorrect in my understanding of this, or if this is
not an expensive operation and worth ignoring.
Thanks,
steven
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:30, jpff@codemist.co.uk wrote:
> I would prefer as many opcodes as possible to be plugins, and only the
> barest core (not sure what, but =, out for sure) remaining. I thought
> that was what was intended and is why I moved so many.
> ==John ffitch
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ . |