btw, would it be thinkable to add the possibility to run the pd~ subprocess asynchronously?
Think of a subprocess running a large Gem patch, that would potentially produce large CPU spikes; you don't really care if this subprocess sometimes gets late, while you absolutely need the calling process (aka audio) to be on time. As for the interface, I guess asynchronous behavior could be automatically enabled when ninsig=0 and noutsig=0? Antoine Le ven. 25 sept. 2020 à 12:43, Christof Ressi <[email protected]> a écrit : > The "delay" setting is in ms, but the "-fifo" argument is in blocks. > Note that the "delay" setting is only valid for the parent process. In > the subprocess, all audio settings from the menu are ignored because the > relevant settings are passed via the [pd~] object). > > Christof > > On 25.09.2020 04:56, Fede Camara Halac wrote: > > > > Aha! Thanks for clarifying! One more question, while I'm at it. Is the > "delay" setting in blocks like the -fifo argument? > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > f > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
