[PD] reorg of puredata.info/docs/developer

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:22 +0200, "András Murányi" <muranyia at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2011/7/6 Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> 
> >
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:36 +0200, "András Murányi" <muranyia at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 00:12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I should, there is a specific question of whether these two are still
> > > > needed:
> > > >
> > > > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/64BitLinux<
> > http://puredata.info/docs/developer/64BitLinux>
> > > >
> > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/**BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuI**
> > > > ntrepid<
> > http://puredata.info/docs/developer/BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuIntrepid>
> > > >
> > > > 0.43 should work fine on all 64-bit systems (never tested Windows tho).
> > > >
> > > > .hc
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, do these apply to to 0.42 in any way? If not any more, they can go.
> > > However, it could be nice to have a short writeup on the history of
> > > 64-bit
> > > in Pd, most importantly stating the version from which it does not make a
> > > difference any more.
> > >
> > > Andras
> >
> > That's a good idea.  As far as I know, Pd vanilla 0.42.5 was the first
> > version that was fully usable on 64-bit.  Pd-extended 0.43 is the first
> > version where the all the libs are expected to run on 64-bit (at least
> > on GNU/Linux, still no Gem on Mac OS X).  Here's my quick stab at this
> > page and I don't even have a 64-bit OS.  Can the 64-bit people add and
> > edit this to something useful :-D
> >
> > http://puredata.info/docs/64BitSupport
> >
> > .hc
> >
> 
> Cool! Now, I'd add some notes on the practical implications of this...
> what
> about you moving the two previously mentioned pages under this new one
> (sorry i'm not confident moving pages in the wiki... i've messed things
> up
> before) and me adding the context?

It seems the other 64-bit pages in the developer section are about
building Pd on 64-bit GNU/Linux platforms.  I think that those
instructions are no longer needed for 0.43, so perhaps they should be
archived or at least marked as only relevant to old versions.

> (Also, someone could make this "an XXX bits float can store a YYY bits
> integer" a bit more clear as I personally still don't really understand
> it.
> I also remember vaguely some criticism of this system, that it is not
> very
> efficient? Matju? If you guys explain it here on the list I'll be happy
> to
> add it to the wiki.)
> 
> Andras

With a 32-bit float, some of the bits go to representing the exponent
part, therefore there is not the full 32-bits available to represent an
integer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand

.hc