Hi,
> >In the case of PD, maybe just a good mix of libpd and a generalization > >of pd~ can improve things much. > > [pd~] deals with the particular case of creating an extra dsp thread, it > incurs overhead to do so and does not isolate the dsp from a busy patch. It > is quite orthogonal to creating separate gui, video, audio or whatever > threads. Ah, I see the distinction now. > Something to really make pd parallel would involve treating fan-outs as > opportunities for the interpreter to launch each branch in a new thread, This is more like what I understood/infered. The idea is to put the burden of parallel programming from the guy that writes a patch to the pd developpers :). Thanks for the details Simon, ++ -- Charles _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
