Another alternative would be to pass around shared pointers to a queue. Does that seem like a reasonable, albeit hack-ee, approach?
Sincerely, Tommy James Tracy II Ph.D Student High Performance Low Power Lab University of Virginia Phone: 913-775-2241 On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:46 PM, Josh Blum <j...@joshknows.com> wrote: > > > On 07/09/2013 08:25 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote: >> On 07/09/2013 05:06 PM, Tommy Tracy II wrote: >> >>> I am working on a GNU Radio Router block that will serve as a >>> communication block between multiple flow graphs. My router will >>> receive information via TCP, and then send it to several other >>> blocks to be processed. After those blocks have completed their >>> processing, my original idea was to take that data and return it >>> to the router to be sent back to a different node. This would >>> introduce a cycle in the flow graph. Is there any way to disable >>> cycle prevention? >> >> There is no way to disable cycle prevention; the GNU Radio >> scheduler algorithm requires streaming ports to be a directed >> acyclic graph. >> >> However, this applies to streaming ports only. It's possible >> (though probably lower in performance) for you to encapsulate data >> into async messages and use message ports connected in an arbitrary >> topology. >> >> > > Checkout the advanced scheduler. There is no problem with feedback > loops, and there is no penalty for passing buffers as messages instead > of streams: https://github.com/guruofquality/gras/wiki > > -josh > >> >> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio >> mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >> > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
