-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
EQ Rack #330
EQ Rack #330
Conversation
… are changed, do ramping in the next process() call
… for a specific Channel
Thank you for the pull request! |
m_highEqFreq(0.0), | ||
m_pEffectsManager(pEffectsManager) { | ||
|
||
// Initialize the EQ Effect Rack |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
// Get the EQ Effect Rack
It is already initialized
Thank you Nicu. IMHO this is a solid base for all advanced EQ stuff we may introduce. I would really like to see this in 1.12. What do others think? |
Instead of loading an empty effect on each deck, set the control responsible for enabling an effect to 0
m_pEffectsManager(pEffectsManager) { | ||
|
||
// Get the EQ Effect Rack | ||
m_pEQEffectRack = m_pEffectsManager->getEQEffectRack().data(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we should hold a strong reference to the EQEffectRack. This ensures that it is not detested early elsewhere.
You can user .data() inside the connect statement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I do that, I get this: Warning [Main]: QObject: shared QObject was deleted directly. The program is malformed and may crash.
I've read about a similar issue here[1] but I'm not sure if our warning is caused by the same concept.
[1] - http://blog.codef00.com/2011/12/15/not-so-much-fun-with-qsharedpointer/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, then it seam there is an underlying issue. Probably something to do with the memory leak you are facing in the open bug. Please leaf a comment here and we can issue that in a separate commit.
Thank you Nicu! I think this is now almost ready. Anyone else likes to review? Unfortunately we cannot merge it without regression, because it is blocked by the Button Parameter discussion, pending since 15 Jul :-( |
still valid after the recent EQ rack PR from @daschuer ? |
We can close this as well. My new PR is based on this. Thank you @badescunicu for all your work. |
For more details, check: http://www.mixxx.org/wiki/doku.php/eq_rack
This PR still suffers from https://bugs.launchpad.net/mixxx/+bug/1335823. To reproduce it, check "Show All Effects" checkbox several times.