From 30a9c2d05b422dc60e9f7c3e1cb35cd9d02accf2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Colin Fletcher Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:12:51 +0000 Subject: Comments in various call-sites of coverage() Comments in various call sites of Evoral::coverage() marking things I think are dubious (with XXX). Also straightened up the alignment of some ASCII art in libs/ardour/diskstream.cc --- libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) (limited to 'libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc') diff --git a/libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc b/libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc index cf0e587ec6..fefc1c235c 100644 --- a/libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc +++ b/libs/ardour/audio_diskstream.cc @@ -460,6 +460,8 @@ AudioDiskstream::process (BufferSet& bufs, framepos_t transport_frame, pframes_t if (record_enabled()) { Evoral::OverlapType ot = Evoral::coverage (first_recordable_frame, last_recordable_frame, transport_frame, transport_frame + nframes); + // XXX should this be transport_frame + nframes - 1 ? coverage() expects its parameter ranges to include their end points + // XXX also, first_recordable_frame & last_recordable_frame may both be == max_framepos: coverage() will return OverlapNone in that case. Is thak OK? calculate_record_range (ot, transport_frame, nframes, rec_nframes, rec_offset); DEBUG_TRACE (DEBUG::CaptureAlignment, string_compose ("%1: this time record %2 of %3 frames, offset %4\n", _name, rec_nframes, nframes, rec_offset)); -- cgit v1.2.3