<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:51 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at">zmoelnig@iem.at</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">>> the idea is to make "double" the standard for Pd in the future.<br>>> if nobody spents time for that it will never happen.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">I'd like to help with this if I can (with only fragmentary knowledge of Pd core code I must say). I recall looking at the options to compile Pd with type double, but running into union tabfudge and UNITBIT32 which are used by rather central Pd objects like [osc~] and [phasor~]. I did not fully grasp the working of this clever type punning hack, but assumed it cannot be translated to type double rightaway. Is it true that this trick is crucial for computational speed of [osc~] & co, and must an equivalent routine still be developed (if possible at all)? Or are there other, more important bottlenecks to solve?</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">Katja</span></div>