[PD-dev] devel_0_39 ? devel_0_40 ?

[Thomas Grill]

Hi all,
i hate to be a spoiler, but the features that sleep in the devel  
branch are the topic of my talk at the pdconf.
I'll commit a bit more stuff in the next couple of days... i hope to  
be able to use idle time at the convention to make patches against  
HEAD for the most important improvements that are in the devel branch  
(with decreasing priority: SIMD, portaudio, portmidi, multi threading  
stuff, idle callbacks).
Apart from that i'm all for completely adandoning the devel branch in  
favor of patches to the patch tracker, which will also be one  
conclusion of my paper.
all the best,
Thomas

Am 22.07.2007 um 01:09 schrieb Miller Puckette:

> As it happens I'm just having a look at devel_0_39, trying to compile
> it to see if I can get any latency wins from the callback scheduling
> and/or settable blocksizes.
>
> I think there are other enhancements in there (we heard recently about
> SYSEX MIDI on OSX) that warrant putting into 0.41.  If these are  
> available
> as patches to 0.41 itself, they're much easier for me to apply, but  
> certain
> changes are so non-local (like the SSE speedups) that the only way  
> to proceed
> is looking at any version that has the enhancement in question and  
> deciding
> how to fit it nicely into 0.41.
>
> The "devel" branch seems to have filled two purposes  
> simultaneously.  I think
> a few people actually were using devel_0_39 in productions, but it  
> also
> served as a testbed for things to merge into the "head".
>
> There are fully THREE pathways proposed for introducing changes  
> into Pd; the
> third is Pd_extended in which, if I understand it correctly, some  
> patches
> are applied to Pd in order to resolve various compatibility  
> problems with
> external libraries (e.g., scoping of symbols in dynamic linking?)  
> which
> might, or might not, also be reflected in devel_0_39.
>
> Finally, 0.40 still isn't 64-bit safe; for that you'll need 0.41.   
> This
> is a serious problem in some distributions of linux in which many  
> libraries
> aren't available in 32-bit form in the 64-bit version of the OS.   
> Just as
> a teaser, I tried running the same patch as 32-bit and 64-bit  
> programs on
> my 64-bit machine, hoping to find the 32-bit version so much faster  
> that I
> could just forget optimizing the 64 bit version entirely.  But I  
> found the
> 64-bit one 33% faster than the 32-bit one for the particular patch  
> I tried.
> So 64-bit compatibility has to be taken seriously!
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 01:21:28PM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>>
>> Is devel_0_40 still planned?
>>
>> It's getting closer to one year since the last changes to devel_0_39
>> were applied, apart from mine. So, what happened exactly?
>>
>>  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
>> | Mathieu Bouchard - t?l:+1.514.383.3801, Montr?al QC Canada
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PD-dev mailing list
>> PD-dev at iem.at
>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
>
>