[PD] efficiency savings?

2010-01-30 Thread Oded Ben-Tal
I started putting together elements of a patch that I worked on separately 
and I'm getting sound droopouts. It seems I'm simply asking Pd to do too 
much for real-time processing. I started making the code more efficient by 
removing number and gui objects that I used for debugging and used switch~ 
to shut off audio processing in windows when not used. Any other general
suggestions? Is there a method of finding out which parts of the patch are 
most demanding?


thanks
Oded

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


Re: [PD] efficiency savings?

2010-01-30 Thread Andy Farnell


Breaking things up into abstractions lets
you do 'unit tests' on subsystems to check
their performance separately from the rest
of the the patch. 

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Oded Ben-Tal o...@ccrma.stanford.edu wrote:

 I started putting together elements of a patch that I worked on separately 
 and I'm getting sound droopouts. It seems I'm simply asking Pd to do too 
 much for real-time processing. I started making the code more efficient by 
 removing number and gui objects that I used for debugging and used switch~ 
 to shut off audio processing in windows when not used. Any other general
 suggestions? Is there a method of finding out which parts of the patch are 
 most demanding?
 
 thanks
 Oded
 
 ___
 Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
 UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - 
 http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list


-- 

---
Sent from my 3 (http://three.co.uk) mobile broadband
   Third world internet for a first world economy.
* 20 bytes/second * 99% packet loss  * 60 second latency
 All for only £20/month (Odious and predatory terms apply)

___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management - 
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list