[PD] JACK and blocksize

[Roman Haefeli]

Hi Christof

On Sat, 2022-01-15 at 15:51 +0100, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > Oh, interesting. Haven't tried myself yet, but good to know that
> > many
> > patches wouldn't work. I can't get around using [receive~].
> 
> Have you seen my last reply (
> https://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2022-01/130716.html)?
> It describes how to fix this. (I would not recommend doing this in
> practice, though.)

Yeah, thanks, I read it _after_ I wrote my last mail. That's good to
know. 

> If more people think that they need to run Pd at a lower scheduler
> block size, we should think about making it a runtime option. AFAICT,
> there is no technical reason why it has to be a compile time
> constant.

It's not that I'm requesting it, but if it was there, I'd certainly
play around with it. I just wanted to check if it is feasible and also
if it makes sense at all. If this is a sensible thing, I'll put it into
a feature request. 

Roman
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20220115/231867cd/attachment.sig>