[PD-dev] Re: array locks
mpuckett at man104-1.ucsd.edu
Sun May 22 19:19:41 CEST 2005
I'm hoping to get it to a point where it won't change much by the time 0.39 is
stable... judging from past experience, that might be another 3 months or
I'm now worried that, having unified garrays and arrays-in-data, we might
need an entirely different buffering scheme for handling 8-, 16- and 32-bit
arrays, especially once the 64 bit version of Pd comes into wider use. But
also, 32-bit arrays are probably overkill for buffering images. I'm hoping
to experiment with unifying the "tilde" stuff with image I/O this summer, which
will bring this question to a head.
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:58:11PM +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> hi miller,
> since i have to rewrite the garray locks once again, can you estimate,
> when you will finish the implementation of the t_garrays? once again
> it's easier to rewrite them than porting ...
> it's similar for thomas grill's garray_update functions ... i'd suggest
> we try to meet on irc during the next few days (probably evening for me,
> morning for you :) to discuss if and how we can handle this ...
> i'd like to improve the threaded soundfiler soon, but without knowing
> what will happen to the t_garrays in future, its probably only a waste
> of my time ...
> usually, sitting at my computer i'm logged into the #dataflow irc
> channel, so it would be nice if you could try to contact me there ...
> thanks ... tim
> mailto:TimBlechmann at gmx.de ICQ: 96771783
> latest mp3: kMW.mp3
> latest cd: Goh Lee Kwang & Tim Blechmann: Drone
> After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space
> would say "I want to see the manager."
> William S. Burroughs
More information about the Pd-dev