View Single Post
Old 30 June 2016, 20:33   #51
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
No it's not possible. As long as the memory belongs to your process, nothing will identify out-of-range accesses. So you can still happily overflow array bounds.
You can just handle assembly language like a script language. The question is whether it's useful or not. Probably not

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
For reading the lists you need to disable multitasking
That's very true. I find this kind of thing quite dirty, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
So everyone's read only for the other ?
In the message buffer case, yes. Don't see the problem with it. Tasks simply use their own buffer to replay to a message instead of reusing the received buffer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
You speak about optional memory protection, but it has nothing to do with the fact a program will work or not. If a program doesn't have the added overhead memory protection implies, then it won't work when it's active.
But where does most of the overhead come from? I don't see how a simple memory protection scheme is going to generate much overhead except for the MMU, but I might be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Switch to a better cpu
Well, I have a peecee...

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Anyway you can still code (= type text in an editor).
Unworkable. The whole system slows down when most of the CPU is in use. It's just not practical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Not everyone has that. I have a 15GB CF.
That's true, but when you're on a 68030, I don't see the usefulness of sacrificing sound quality, just so that you can almost grind the system to a halt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
I was speaking about the code that actually writes the table.
Just count through all 16 bit combinations, endian convert them, look them up in the calibration table as if they're normal samples, and write them out to a new table. I don't see how that's very hard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meynaf View Post
Where did you check ?
All docs i've read say little endian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV
The Sox documentations says that. There are two formats. RIFF and RIFX. They're identical except for the endian and the identifier in the header.
Thorham is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.09183 seconds with 9 queries