On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 14:13 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi wrote: > Okay, I wrote such a test. It fails with Jack's ringbuffer (jack1 r3004) but > succeeds with Portaudio's one (r1240). Nice work. Nobody ask why we didn't do this 5 years ago! > The Portaudio code looks more and more robust to me. It's also surprisingly > short. Maybe that the best would be to replace jack's ringbuffer with it? I > think it should be possible to keep the jack_ringbuffer api unchanged. I'd rather add the memory barriers to the JACK code, but this could be a race to see who does what first. A memory barrier is typically single instruction. The complication tends to be defining them in a sufficiently portable way. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
