[PD] GEM pix_image+ram

stefan stefanpiat at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 14:56:16 CEST 2009

yes, with pix_film too... (I load .jpg files into it)
(and with pix_buffer too)

but maybe I'm wrong somewhere?
I join patchs with pix_buffer and pix_film...
(maybe you have to change file path to make it work)

 is gem 0.91.3 the hottest Gem ?


2009/4/27 chris clepper <cgclepper at gmail.com>

> 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/20090427/73ebf2ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pix_buffer+pix_film.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 3704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20090427/73ebf2ca/attachment.zip>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list