Re: DVR on iR

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Michael T. Jones (mtj++at++babar.asd.sgi.com)
Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:17:30 -0700

On Sep 9, 5:11pm, Daniel Jia wrote:
> Subject: Re: DVR on iR
> On Sep 9, 10:55am, Sharon Clay wrote:
> > Subject: Re: DVR on iR
> >
> > +>---- On Sep 9, 3:33pm, Lionel Maiaux wrote:
> > > Subject: DVR on iR
> > ->
> > ->Is there any reason to repeat these calls EVERY frames in DVR_AUTO mode
> between
> > ->pfSync and pfFrame (see perfly.c) ?
> > ->
> > ->pfPVChanDVRMode
> > ->pfPVChanStressFilter
> > ->pfuCursorType
> > ->pfChanProjMode
> >
> > If the values are not changing then they do not need to be made.
>
> Hey, who doesn't understand this statement?!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not many of those who don't understand it will not want further
updates if they are needed, so here they are interpolated within
the original to eschew obfuscation:

  "If the values [that are set using these functions] are not
   changing [in your application] then [repeated calls of these
   functions would be redundant, thus] they do not need to be made."

Which is to say:

 These functions set values (modes) that persist, and so do not
 need to be called every frame unless different values are to be
 specified.

This is what Sharon meant. I understood it the first time. ;-)

Michael
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:53:31 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.