Re: [Audacity-devel] [audacity] r11215 committed - Added an sse enabled mixed-radix-fft implementat
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Michael C. <mc...@gm...> - 2011-07-04 20:52:45
|
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: > > | From Martyn Shaw <mar...@gm...> > | Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:33:10 +0100 > | Subject: [Audacity-devel] [audacity] r11215 committed - Added an sse enabled mixed-radix-fft implementation and a menu/view/{n... >> This commit and the last one should have (I think) some explanation >> here. You have made significant changes, including adding menu items >> that may need to go into the manual. Please explain the changes to us. >> >> I see that some are under EXPERIMENTAL_USE_MIXEDRADIX_FFT (turned on, >> and not explained). >> >> Changing 100s of lines of code surely needs some bigger comment? >> Particularly close to a release. > > I've got questions too. > > I think I understand the new menu items as they stand - they provide > a way to show finer window size increments than you can get from > Spectrograms Preferences? That seems very useful, but should they > be in the menus or only a shortcut? I think the menu items will be > initially confusing to the general user as they will appear to do nothing > when in the waveform views. Would it be an idea to hide the menu items > when there is no track in Spectrogram view? I understand you can't > grey out as this reflects whether you can increment further or not. > > Do the changes under "mixed-radix-fft" also affect anything on these > pages: > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Spectrograms_Preferences > http://manual.audacityteam.org/man/Track_Drop-Down_Menu#Spectrogram ? > > My main question though is with Time Scale. I figure the two fixed P2s: > http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170 > http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172 > > will have to be retested, and the new functionality tested too. How > extensively have you tested against the two former bugs, and on which > platforms? Hi Clayton, r11214 says it fixes bug 172, but as Gale says a fix for this was already committed. It doesn't look this fixes any additional bugs - please correct me if I am wrong. With the feature freeze being in place these feature changes and the fact that these changes break the linux build make me feel like this code should be reverted since it adds additional features and a lot of extra code that could cause more bugs. I think we should revert soon to restore the linux build, and discuss the validity of these changes after, and we can recommit if needed. Any objections? Michael |