On winxp it will consistently freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
Returning to the original subject a little. Is it possible to correct this bug or wathever it is that dynamically created objects don't start dsp? Or it will cause other troubles? Also (and I think that I read something about this in the list archive) it would be nice to be able to delete just one dynamically created object since until now the only option of doing this is the "clear" message, wich deletes all the created objects.
I'm not requesting this changes, i'm just asking if this is possible, since this is a "non suported feature".
Another thing: If, as you are saying, the [until] object shouldn't crash the OS, but at most just Pd, dynamically created objects souldn't do it also, am I right?
2010/2/28 Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com
On winxp it will consistently freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
-- Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com http://www.matteosistisette.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Caio Barros wrote:
Returning to the original subject a little. Is it possible to correct this bug or wathever it is that dynamically created objects don't start dsp? Or it will cause other troubles?
it's certainly possible. nevertheless i daresay that the chances are relatively low, given the existing workarounds to force recompilation off the dsp-tree (with live coding i find myself saving the patch quite often, as this also forces to rebuild the dsp; with dynamic patching, turn off DSP before you create the first object, and turn it on after you created the last object; this is only unfortunate if you don't want to turn on dsp in all cases, as there is no "real" way to query the current state)
Also (and I think that I read something about this in the list archive) it would be nice to be able to delete just one dynamically created object since until now the only option of doing this is the "clear" message, wich deletes all the created objects.
well, i think there is a patch bending in the sourceforge tracker that would allow you to do just this; in the meantime have a look at iemguts, which will do all this for you. (or you could use one of these frameworks like Pd-Pod or dyn~)
I'm not requesting this changes, i'm just asking if this is possible, since this is a "non suported feature".
in open source development there is not much difference between the two :-)
Another thing: If, as you are saying, the [until] object shouldn't crash the OS, but at most just Pd, dynamically created objects souldn't do it also, am I right?
this depends where the crash comes from. the patching engine itself should definitely not crash. if one of the so-created objects behaves extraordinarily bad it could certainly crash the vm, Pd, your computer or the world and Pd couldn't much do about that (i'm talking about externals here) this might not be desired behaviour, but the responsibility lies outside Pd.
fgmasdr IOhannes
Caio Barros escribió:
Returning to the original subject a little. Is it possible to correct this bug or wathever it is that dynamically created objects don't start dsp? Or it will cause other troubles?
Have you tried by sending a [; pd dsp 0; pd dsp 1( message after the creation of the objects? Disabling and enabling dsp again should cause the dsp chain to be recomputed, this time including all objects. Or you may create one more "dummy" object, one that has some dsp objects inside _but_ that does not produce any sound. Have you tried that?
2010/2/28 Matteo Sisti Sette
Have you tried by sending a [; pd dsp 0; pd dsp 1( message after the creation of the objects? Disabling and enabling dsp again should cause the dsp chain to be recomputed, this time including all objects. Or you may create one more "dummy" object, one that has some dsp objects inside _but_ that does not produce any sound. Have you tried that?
I didn't tried the dsp 0 and dsp 1 yet, but I did tried the creation of the
dummy object today and it worked perfectly, thanks again for the help. My composition is now one big step closer to the end! But won't the dsp 0/1 cause a little break in the playback? Maybe I'll try that just out of curiosity.
I asked about those features in dynamic object creation because I think it's a nice way of creating repeated things just as much as you need it, instead of building a big patch with the maximun you think someone will ever use. Controlling wich object you want to delete is also a good way to get rid of things you are not using.
IOhannes m zmölnig:
I'm not requesting this changes, i'm just asking if this is possible,
since
this is a "non suported feature".
in open source development there is not much difference between the two :-)
Maybe if you are a programmer, yes. But if you are just a humble composer student as I am you can only wait for a good soul to hear your prayers. (Or maybe pay a good soul to hear you prayers, but that's not for humble composer students). Thanks for the help, i'll look for iemguts.
There is another thing that don't work with dynamically created objects that is the [loadbang] object. But I think this is actually a good thing since at one hand it doesn't make sence (aren't your main patch already loaded? how can it loadbang after it's loaded!?) and at the other hand you can easily program a bang just before the patch is dyamically created (with delay 0) using the trigger object.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Caio Barros wrote:
IOhannes m zmölnig:
I'm not requesting this changes, i'm just asking if this is possible,
since
this is a "non suported feature".
in open source development there is not much difference between the two :-)
Maybe if you are a programmer, yes. But if you are just a humble composer student as I am you can only wait for a good soul to hear your prayers. (Or maybe pay a good soul to hear you prayers, but that's not for humble composer students).
i guess you misunderstood me. i understood that you won't code the features yourself; how would a "request for a feature" be different from a question of "whether this 'can' be done (hopefully by someone else who feels like this is indeed a good idea and who has the skills to implement them)", apart from the level of politeness?
both are merely asking, whether someone knows how to do it and whether this (or some other) person is actually willing to do it.
that's all the might you have when you "request".
(but there already has been a thread on the issue of 'request's on this mailinglist; it turns out that 'request' translates differently in the various languages, so some people see it as a "question whether it is possible" while for others it is more a "demand" (e.g. something they think they have a right to))
Thanks for the help, i'll look for iemguts.
There is another thing that don't work with dynamically created objects that is the [loadbang] object.
please read the archives on this topic (there are numerous search interfaces to this mailinglist, one of them being at http://lists.puredata.info/serach/Pd-list) the last time, this question popped up on 23rd february, so you might already have been subscribed to the list. in short: this is a feature, not a bug
mfd IOhannes
i guess you misunderstood me. i understood that you won't code the
features yourself; how would a "request for a feature" be different from a question of "whether this 'can' be done (hopefully by someone else who feels like this is indeed a good idea and who has the skills to implement them)", apart from the level of politeness?
Yes, you are right. I understand what you said. I reply too fast and in the end was just a feeling that I needed to share with you lol
There is another thing that don't work with dynamically created objects
that
is the [loadbang] object.
please read the archives on this topic (there are numerous search
interfaces to this mailinglist, one of them being at http://lists.puredata.info/serach/Pd-list) the last time, this question popped up on 23rd february, so you might already have been subscribed to the list. in short: this is a feature, not a bug
I was already subscribed but turned the e-mail receiving off because I was a little away of pd for some time. Anyway my work is now complete thanks to you guys. I apreciated the help very much and and working with Pd is becoming a more and more pleasing thing to do.
--- On Sun, 2/28/10, Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com wrote:
From: Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Strange bug in my patch To: jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "PD list" pd-list@iem.at Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 1:00 PM
On winxp it will consistently
freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
Oh, that's interesting. But if I do that on a dual core machine, it won't let me "End Task"-- I have to actually kill the wish process manually, after which the task manager still says that CPU usage is at 100%. And if I try to start Pd again, it's visibly slower, and if I try to bang another [until] it will freeze the entire computer (kind of like that Simpsons episode where Homer tries to pull his legs out of the tarpit with his hands, then tries to pull his hands out with his head...)
So it seems like sooner or later you have to restart in windows to get things back to normal.
-Jonathan
-- Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com http://www.matteosistisette.com
Jonathan Wilkes escribió:
On winxp it will consistently
freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
Oh, that's interesting. But if I do that on a dual core machine, it won't let me "End Task"-- I have to actually kill the wish process manually,
You mean you cannot do "end task" in the "Applications" tab of the Task Manager but you do "end process" in the "Processes" tab?
after which the task manager still says that CPU usage is at 100%. And if I try to start Pd again, it's visibly slower, and if I try to bang another [until] it will freeze the entire computer
Have you tried killing the "Pd.exe" (or pd.com) process instead of the "wish" one? Wish is the gui. Usually killing any of them will cause the other one to die, but in this case I guess the frozen one is pd proper and (I guess again) it doesn't "realise" the wish process has been killed.
yes that's because omer simpson always used windows, and always shops at the wallmart, we can't help it
hihi
sevy
Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/28/10, Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com wrote:
From: Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Strange bug in my patch To: jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "PD list" pd-list@iem.at Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 1:00 PM
On winxp it will consistently
freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
Oh, that's interesting. But if I do that on a dual core machine, it won't let me "End Task"-- I have to actually kill the wish process manually, after which the task manager still says that CPU usage is at 100%. And if I try to start Pd again, it's visibly slower, and if I try to bang another [until] it will freeze the entire computer (kind of like that Simpsons episode where Homer tries to pull his legs out of the tarpit with his hands, then tries to pull his hands out with his head...)
So it seems like sooner or later you have to restart in windows to get things back to normal.
-Jonathan
-- Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com http://www.matteosistisette.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
ydegoyon@gmail.com escribió:
yes that's because omer simpson always used windows, and always shops at the wallmart, we can't help it
lol
hihi
sevy
Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Sun, 2/28/10, Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com wrote:
From: Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Strange bug in my patch To: jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "PD list" pd-list@iem.at Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 1:00 PM
On winxp it will consistently
freeze the computer, forcing a reboot.
-Jonathan
"Only" on single-processor machines.
Oh, that's interesting. But if I do that on a dual core machine, it won't let me "End Task"-- I have to actually kill the wish process manually, after which the task manager still says that CPU usage is at 100%. And if I try to start Pd again, it's visibly slower, and if I try to bang another [until] it will freeze the entire computer (kind of like that Simpsons episode where Homer tries to pull his legs out of the tarpit with his hands, then tries to pull his hands out with his head...)
So it seems like sooner or later you have to restart in windows to get things back to normal.
-Jonathan
-- Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com http://www.matteosistisette.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Blinge -
Caio Barros -
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Matteo Sisti Sette -
ydegoyon＠gmail.com