<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yiv6897328911"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_61431"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_61430" style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_62753">One other question: would you accept patches for Pd Vanilla that make it _possible_ to compile with t_float at double-precision (something Pd Vanilla cannot currently do)? That would give the Pd Vanilla user the option to compile to double-precision if they wish, which IIUC is the whole point of t_float in the first place. (Plus Vanilla users would get the small performance increase in the relevant tilde classes.)<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_62752"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_62751" dir="ltr">You'd still compile, distribute, and support Vanilla for t_float at single-precision. Same for external developers.<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_61476" class="yiv6897328911qtdSeparateBR"><br clear="none"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1422895333179_65918" dir="ltr">-Jonathan</div></div><div class="yiv6897328911yqt2336118436" id="yiv6897328911yqt78563"><div class="yiv6897328911yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> On Monday, February 2, 2015 11:49 AM, Miller Puckette <msp@ucsd.edu> wrote:<br clear="none"> </font> </div> <br clear="none"><br clear="none"> <div class="yiv6897328911y_msg_container">What I've heard is that the 64-bit instruction set has wider bit fields<br clear="none">for specifying registers, so that you can have many more of them. (The<br clear="none">386 had two or three I think; the 64 bit machines have dozens, depending<br clear="none">how you count.) So one saves steps reading and writing to/from memory.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">OTOH, since all pointers have to be 64 bits, one uses more memory as a whole,<br clear="none">perhaps by a factor of 1.5 or so - I don't see why, given that memory is<br clear="none">"the main bottleneck" most of the time, this could possibly be consistent <br clear="none">with 64-bit architectures being faster. So basically I don't understand<br clear="none">what's really going on.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">cheers<br clear="none">Miller<br clear="none"><div class="yiv6897328911yqt0780436743" id="yiv6897328911yqtfd97531"><br clear="none">On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:<br clear="none">> Hi Miller,What do you think is causing that performance increase on the version of Pd that is compiled for the 64-bit architecture?<br clear="none">> -Jonathan<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> <br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div> </div> </div> </div></div> </div></div></div></div></body></html>