Ah OK. So the produce function advances the buffer pointer only? Rich
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Marcus Müller <marcus.muel...@ettus.com> wrote: > Hi Rich, > > What happens when you assign input to output in a general_work call, > out[ii]=in[ii], but don't call produce? > > Then you're breaking a contract! > GNU Radio has to rely on you only writing samples you admit that you > produce -- otherwise, the write pointer can't advance, and the next > general_work will be offered the same buffer space again. > > My minds eye sees the out variable as a secondary local buffer for > general_work. > > There is no local buffer! You directly work on the pseudocircular buffers; > everything else would introduce unnecessary copy overhead. > > Best regards, > Marcus > > > On 06/24/2015 09:23 PM, Richard Bell wrote: > > What happens when you assign input to output in a general_work call, > out[ii]=in[ii], but don't call produce? Is the stuff you dumped into 'out' > lost when general_work returns WORK_CALLED_PRODUCE? > > My minds eye sees the out variable as a secondary local buffer for > general_work. You dump stuff in there while general_work has scope, and > transfer the contents of this buffer to the gnuradio block buffer when you > call produce. Am I understanding this correctly? > > v/r, > Rich > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing > listDiscuss-gnuradio@gnu.orghttps://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
