Hi all, i hate to be a spoiler, but the features that sleep in the devel branch are the topic of my talk at the pdconf. I'll commit a bit more stuff in the next couple of days... i hope to be able to use idle time at the convention to make patches against HEAD for the most important improvements that are in the devel branch (with decreasing priority: SIMD, portaudio, portmidi, multi threading stuff, idle callbacks). Apart from that i'm all for completely adandoning the devel branch in favor of patches to the patch tracker, which will also be one conclusion of my paper. all the best, Thomas
Am 22.07.2007 um 01:09 schrieb Miller Puckette:
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