[PD] pd~ fifo flag and block delays

[ffdd cchh]

Thanks, Miller.

Yes, it seems that is the case. I attach an example that shows the delayed
block(s).

What do you mean inefficient? I do not see a drastic change in cpu usage on
the very basic adc-to-dac example subprocess I include here.

As a side note, I noticed that loading -fifo 0 seems to crash pd !

Best,

ffdd


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:42 PM Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:

> That _should_ be correct.
>
> fifos less than 2 are probably inefficient (but I dn't know that for
> sure).
>
> cheers
> Miller
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 06:37:42PM -0300, Fede Camara Halac wrote:
> > ???Hi,
> >
> > When using pd~ with -fifo 1, do you get a delay of 1 block like in
> throw/catch scenario?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > fd
> >
> > fdch.github.io
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list__;!!Mih3wA!Uyv-HqXmCoj0l9209QG7_r5nfJVd8i8hyj0jSDRm6FzZv6t-9DKLtwT6Zaba$
>


-- 
fdch.github.io
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200924/99b890c1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pd-tilde-block-test.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 1698 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20200924/99b890c1/attachment.zip>