---sounds right to me, too, for sure. if it doesn't even fix a regression, it's certainly better not to hurt performance. thanks for the tests on this! so it better remains a challenge for 0.57.cheers,benOn Tue, Nov 4, 2025, 14:26 Miller Puckette via Pd-dev <pd-dev@lists.iem.at> wrote:OK, I'm convinced -- reverting 36d7be0e :)
M
On 11/4/25 2:16 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 13:47 +0100, Miller Puckette via Pd-dev wrote:
>> Yep, that's what's happening to me as well - I can revert 36d7be0e
>> but then the test patch misbehaves.
> I now also checked 0.56-0, 0.55-0, 0.54-0 and the patch misbehaves in
> the same way.
>
> As I see it:
>
> * 36d7be0e fixes an issue - that is old and certainly not a
> regression of 0.56 - at huge performance penalty
>
> * All the GOP related regressions introduced since 0.56-0 are fixed
> in current master and are not relying on 36d7be0e
>
> By principle of least surprise I'd vote for leaving 36d7be0e out in the
> upcoming minor release.
>
> Roman
>
>
> ---
> pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist
> https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/XZN5CLH27Y3QMLZ5FU4TK27DEI3Y3M6D/
---
pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist
https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/SEUQYM3SC5G6YUS53VLOHZ4RIEMIRREE/
pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist
https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/4JUO7GS5UOP222ES3UYZ7XH3PP2SIYAL/