Thanks much for the quick reply ---
I am short on time too, especially since I would have spend a lot
of time just understanding how things work, before making a good
change.
For the moment, I can get by with the ugly fix I made to the
accessor methods (read/write) for tabread / tabwrite and
tab4read --- I did not touch the "tilde" objs, since I haven't
heard anything "off" (yet ?) --- if you know off hand what the
other affected objects are, or could be , could you tell me so I
could do the same to them --
thanks
Zack
On 23-Mar-06, at 5:13 PM, zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Zitat von zack zack@sat.qc.ca:
On my AMD dual-core 64bit (linux) running pd, recently checked out
of the CVS:It looks like tabread misses (returns 0 for) every other (odd)
array value when reading the contents of an array --- UNLESS the
contents was set using tabwrite, in which case, the data is
there-- as if the reader was indexing with a 32 bit-size
increment...this is a long known issue (quite as long as there are amd64
computers out there)however, nobody has found time yet to fix it (the fix is not trivial). if you don't want to fix it yourself but need this feature, i see
only 2 possibilities: a) make a amd64 available to mr.puckette (lend him one, buy him
one,...) b) fund some developer who already has an amd64 but never had the
time to fix the tables.the 2 other solutions are to run pd in 32bit mode (i never found
any real speed gains in any application when running in 64bit - but
of course it is cooler) OR rethink whether you really cannot do
without tables for now (i have been living with pd on x86_64 for >6
month now and it seems like i never really needed the tables. but
then it is just my laptop which i hardly ever use) all the best.mfg.asdr. IOhannes
<mime-attachment>