EQ Rack#330
Conversation
… are changed, do ramping in the next process() call
… for a specific Channel
|
Thank you for the pull request! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
// 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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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.
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. |
5 participants
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.