2011/7/6 Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at>

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:36 +0200, "András Murányi" <muranyia@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 00:12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans@at.or.at>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I should, there is a specific question of whether these two are still
> > needed:
> >
> > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/64BitLinux<http://puredata.info/docs/developer/64BitLinux>
> > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/**BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuI**
> > ntrepid<http://puredata.info/docs/developer/BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuIntrepid>
> >
> > 0.43 should work fine on all 64-bit systems (never tested Windows tho).
> >
> > .hc
> >
>
> Well, do these apply to to 0.42 in any way? If not any more, they can go.
> However, it could be nice to have a short writeup on the history of
> 64-bit
> in Pd, most importantly stating the version from which it does not make a
> difference any more.
>
> Andras

That's a good idea.  As far as I know, Pd vanilla 0.42.5 was the first
version that was fully usable on 64-bit.  Pd-extended 0.43 is the first
version where the all the libs are expected to run on 64-bit (at least
on GNU/Linux, still no Gem on Mac OS X).  Here's my quick stab at this
page and I don't even have a 64-bit OS.  Can the 64-bit people add and
edit this to something useful :-D

http://puredata.info/docs/64BitSupport

.hc

Cool! Now, I'd add some notes on the practical implications of this... what about you moving the two previously mentioned pages under this new one (sorry i'm not confident moving pages in the wiki... i've messed things up before) and me adding the context?
(Also, someone could make this "an XXX bits float can store a YYY bits integer" a bit more clear as I personally still don't really understand it. I also remember vaguely some criticism of this system, that it is not very efficient? Matju? If you guys explain it here on the list I'll be happy to add it to the wiki.)

Andras