On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:32 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:57 +0200, Ingo wrote: > > > The [change -1] is a great idea, I just committed that to bytemask.pd > > > and debytemask.pd. But the [pd resolve-bits_0-7] abstractions seem > > > quite labor-intensive, but they work. I think it would work better to > > > use multiple instances of [debytemask]. > > > > > > .hc > > > > Not sure what you mean by "labor-intensive", Hans. Are you talking about > > manually changing 8 numbers per object (which took me less than 1 minute for > > 56 channels) or are you talking about cpu processing? > > > > Which leads me to the next question: is the Boolean approach using [& 4] and > > [>> 2] more cpu friendly than using [mod 8] and [div 4]? > > I was told that it is. Bit shifting and bit mask matching is supposed to > be faster than integer division and modulo with an arbitrary (inclusive > non-power-of-two integers).
It turns out that difference is not significant. On my box, processing 1000000 floats takes ~160ms ([mod],[div]) vs. ~150 ([&],[>>]). Probably all the message parsing overhead is consuming more than the actual computation of the numbers. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list