[PD] GEM pix_write bugs (timelapse)

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Apr 2 09:40:54 CEST 2009

Max wrote:
>> or am i missing something obvious (it seems so, as i cannot reproduce 
>> the memleak you report with [pix_image] either).
> well, obviously you are missing something. i hope someone can reproduce 
> that with the attached patches.
> run top to see the memory beeing eaten by pd. at least on os x with
> GEM: ver: 0.91.3 'tigital'
> GEM: compiled: Feb 23 2009

this is exactly what i have been doing on linux (and Pd's memory 
consumption stayed at 1.7% for the first 15000 frames). so the problem 
is most likely os-x related.
still it would be nice to have a bit more info; e.g. how long do i have 
to wait before the crash is likely to occur (this is obviously related 
to the amout of memory; but since i don't want to spend 3 days waiting 
because only a few bytes are leaking rather than the entire image, it 
would be nice to know the number (and size) of frames you are using on 
your machine equipped with how many kilobytes of ram)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20090402/34e5ba9b/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list