Re: [PD] spread Gem-computation over several dsp-cycles (?) (was: [Gem]: gem-pointer and [list] OR slow [repeat])

2007-03-01 Thread cyrille henry
i made some change to this abstraction in order to compute only the time use for the gemhead loop and not the time between 2 images. on my computer, it's about 11ms. but with the display list optimisation, it fall to 6ms about. cyrille Roman Haefeli a écrit : as always: i forgot the

Re: [PD] spread Gem-computation over several dsp-cycles (?) (was: [Gem]: gem-pointer and [list] OR slow [repeat])

2007-03-01 Thread Roman Haefeli
hello cyrille thank you for the adjustments. i think i understand the difference between measuring the gemhead loop and the time between 2 images. but the other thing with the optimization still remains unclear to me and it seems, that it doesn't work here. when i stop the first and start the

Re: [PD] spread Gem-computation over several dsp-cycles (?) (was: [Gem]: gem-pointer and [list] OR slow [repeat])

2007-03-01 Thread cyrille henry
Roman Haefeli a écrit : hello cyrille thank you for the adjustments. i think i understand the difference between measuring the gemhead loop and the time between 2 images. but the other thing with the optimization still remains unclear to me and it seems, that it doesn't work here. when i

[PD] spread Gem-computation over several dsp-cycles (?) (was: [Gem]: gem-pointer and [list] OR slow [repeat])

2007-02-28 Thread Roman Haefeli
hello cyrille thank you. [any] was what i was looking for. it can store a gem-pointer. but as you mentioned it doesn't work when delayed. putting this in the render chain works and gives the expected result: [t b b a] | // [any ] but this makes pd/gem completely stuck: [t b b a] |

Re: [PD] spread Gem-computation over several dsp-cycles (?) (was: [Gem]: gem-pointer and [list] OR slow [repeat])

2007-02-28 Thread Roman Haefeli
as always: i forgot the attachment On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 23:24 +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote: On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 07:14 -0600, chris clepper wrote: On 2/28/07, Roman Haefeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i might be wrong but in my eyes it doesn't make sense to