Re: pfSwitch or pfCycleBuffer?

New Message	Reply	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Chris Mitchell (chris++at++scotch.physics.ucla.edu)
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 16:12:57 -0800 (PST)

Next message: Allan Schaffer: "Administrivia & strange return addresses"
Previous message: Bill Jepson: "From the sublime to the ridiculous"

> I would like to know what the benefits are of the pfCycleBuffer approach vs.
> the pfSwitch approach. Are there cases when one method is better to use
> than the other? It would seem that the pfSwitch approach would be more
> efficient in cases where the geometry doesn't change very often. Any
> comments on these topics would be greatly appreciated.

I would like to know if anyone has done this with a pfSwitch.
I was told by some pfGurus that this was not an option and
that pfCycleBuffers were the only way (at least until 2.2).

Chris Mitchell
UCLA Physics Department
LAPD Plasma Lab
310-206-1772
chrism++at++ucla.edu
http://scotch.physics.ucla.edu/~chris

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

Next message: Allan Schaffer: "Administrivia & strange return addresses"
Previous message: Bill Jepson: "From the sublime to the ridiculous"

New Message	Reply	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:56:27 PDT

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