[PD] more about float limitation

[Miller Puckette]

More than that - I'm hoping to look at Katja's version and adopt the changes,
whether or not there turns out to be a set of formatted diffs available
anywhere...

cheers
M


On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:34:54PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes via Pd-list wrote:
> 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.)
> 
> You'd still compile, distribute, and support Vanilla for t_float at single-precision.  Same for external developers.
> 
> -Jonathan     On Monday, February 2, 2015 11:49 AM, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>    
> 
>  What I've heard is that the 64-bit instruction set has wider bit fields
> for specifying registers, so that you can have many more of them.  (The
> 386 had two or three I think; the 64 bit machines have dozens, depending
> how you count.)  So one saves steps reading and writing to/from memory.
> 
> OTOH, since all pointers have to be 64 bits, one uses more memory as a whole,
> perhaps by a factor of 1.5 or so - I don't see why, given that memory is
> "the main bottleneck" most of the time, this could possibly be consistent 
> with 64-bit architectures being faster.  So basically I don't understand
> what's really going on.
> 
> cheers
> Miller
> 
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:25:18PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > Hi Miller,What do you think is causing that performance increase on the version of Pd that is compiled for the 64-bit architecture?
> > -Jonathan
> > 
> >  
> 
> 
>    

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list