Re: [PD-dev] devel_0_39 ? devel_0_40 ?
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Miller Puckette wrote: Finally, 0.40 still isn't 64-bit safe; for that you'll need 0.41. This is a serious problem in some distributions of linux in which many libraries aren't available in 32-bit form in the 64-bit version of the OS. Just as Before any talk on whether it's better to fork from your 0.40 or your 0.41... and regardless of inclusion of any devel_0_39 features into your 0.41... my only question is whether another devel_0_* is going to happen at all, or is it just called Vibrez nowadays. Have you tried Vibrez yet? I got the installer, but then it fails near the end, saying: Unable to execute file: c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe - CreateProcess failed; code 2. File not found. There are fully THREE pathways proposed for introducing changes into Pd; the third is Pd_extended in which, Sorry. One is devel_0_39, one is Pd_extended and... do you count yourself as being the other one or not? _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] devel_0_39 ? devel_0_40 ?
On 7/21/07, chris clepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/21/07, Miller Puckette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just as > a teaser, I tried running the same patch as 32-bit and 64-bit programs > on > my 64-bit machine, hoping to find the 32-bit version so much faster that > I > could just forget optimizing the 64 bit version entirely. But I found > the > 64-bit one 33% faster than the 32-bit one for the particular patch I > tried. > So 64-bit compatibility has to be taken seriously! If I had to hazard a guess that speedup is due to the compiler. The 64 bit CPUs are all quite recent and the assumptions about what the fast paths are a much smaller and generally much more efficient set than the 32 bit options. No doubt some of that comes from the gamesmanship involved in rigging and hyping scores on the baleful SPEC test suite. ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] devel_0_39 ? devel_0_40 ?
As it happens I'm just having a look at devel_0_39, trying to compile it to see if I can get any latency wins from the callback scheduling and/or settable blocksizes. I think there are other enhancements in there (we heard recently about SYSEX MIDI on OSX) that warrant putting into 0.41. If these are available as patches to 0.41 itself, they're much easier for me to apply, but certain changes are so non-local (like the SSE speedups) that the only way to proceed is looking at any version that has the enhancement in question and deciding how to fit it nicely into 0.41. The "devel" branch seems to have filled two purposes simultaneously. I think a few people actually were using devel_0_39 in productions, but it also served as a testbed for things to merge into the "head". There are fully THREE pathways proposed for introducing changes into Pd; the third is Pd_extended in which, if I understand it correctly, some patches are applied to Pd in order to resolve various compatibility problems with external libraries (e.g., scoping of symbols in dynamic linking?) which might, or might not, also be reflected in devel_0_39. Finally, 0.40 still isn't 64-bit safe; for that you'll need 0.41. This is a serious problem in some distributions of linux in which many libraries aren't available in 32-bit form in the 64-bit version of the OS. Just as a teaser, I tried running the same patch as 32-bit and 64-bit programs on my 64-bit machine, hoping to find the 32-bit version so much faster that I could just forget optimizing the 64 bit version entirely. But I found the 64-bit one 33% faster than the 32-bit one for the particular patch I tried. So 64-bit compatibility has to be taken seriously! cheers Miller On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:21:28PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > > Is devel_0_40 still planned? > > It's getting closer to one year since the last changes to devel_0_39 > were applied, apart from mine. So, what happened exactly? > > _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... > | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801, Montr?al QC Canada > ___ > PD-dev mailing list > PD-dev@iem.at > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
[PD-dev] devel_0_39 ? devel_0_40 ?
Is devel_0_40 still planned? It's getting closer to one year since the last changes to devel_0_39 were applied, apart from mine. So, what happened exactly? _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada___ PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
