Dave Serls skrev:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 10:20:18 +0200
> David Henningsson wrote:
>> Given that priority list, we should make the fluid_synth_t class
>> single-threaded and avoid mutexes altogether. One reason for this is
>> that one of Fluidsynth's most important usages are as a virtual
>> instru
On Sun, 17 May 2009 10:20:18 +0200
David Henningsson wrote:
>
> Given that priority list, we should make the fluid_synth_t class
> single-threaded and avoid mutexes altogether. One reason for this is
> that one of Fluidsynth's most important usages are as a virtual
> instrument in MusE/Rosegard
Some more questions for David,
I don't know of the FS internal threading code or David's propose changes. But
let me ask if the change may affect apps that use 32, 48, 64, or more channels?
There are some apps that use such features in FS.
Along with that, what about cases of running multip
