Sounds like a good plan to me. -Jonathan
On Monday, February 2, 2015 1:58 PM, Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu> wrote:
More than that - I'm hoping to look at Katja's version and adopt the changes, whether or not there turns out to be a set of formatted diffs available anywhere...
cheers M
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:34:54PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
One other question: would you accept patches for Pd Vanilla that make it _possible_ to compile with t_float at double-precision (something Pd Vanilla cannot currently do)? That would give the Pd Vanilla user the option to compile to double-precision if they wish, which IIUC is the whole point of t_float in the first place. (Plus Vanilla users would get the small performance increase in the relevant tilde classes.)
You'd still compile, distribute, and support Vanilla for t_float at single-precision. Same for external developers.
-Jonathan On Monday, February 2, 2015 11:49 AM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
What I've heard is that the 64-bit instruction set has wider bit fields for specifying registers, so that you can have many more of them. (The 386 had two or three I think; the 64 bit machines have dozens, depending how you count.) So one saves steps reading and writing to/from memory.
OTOH, since all pointers have to be 64 bits, one uses more memory as a whole, perhaps by a factor of 1.5 or so - I don't see why, given that memory is "the main bottleneck" most of the time, this could possibly be consistent with 64-bit architectures being faster. So basically I don't understand what's really going on.
cheers Miller
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Hi Miller,What do you think is causing that performance increase on the version of Pd that is compiled for the 64-bit architecture? -Jonathan
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list