[PD] GEM pix_image+ram

chris clepper cgclepper at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 14:01:41 CEST 2009

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:27 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>wrote:

> first of all, this bug in Gem has been fixed in recent SVN (after your
> initial bug-report)
> the obvious solution is to run the hottest Gem (no release out, though; so
> you have to compile it yerself)
> and since it is (was) a bug in the implementation of Gem, there is no way
> you can "fix" it in Pd. the only workaround is to restart Pd (which will
> free all stray memory). "unloading" does not work, because the memory had
> been lost.

Is this also bug with pix_film?  I used pix_film for permanent installations
to load hundreds of thousands of films over years without running into this
problem.  The same patch also had large pix_buffer objects that are stable
in RAM usage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20090427/29320479/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list