[PD] Choices of IPC when using fast-forward
cyrille henry
ch at chnry.net
Thu Mar 17 09:50:32 CET 2022
Le 17/03/2022 à 09:24, IOhannes m zmölnig a écrit :
>
> On 3/17/22 08:58, cyrille henry wrote:
>>
>>> Notable limitations:
>>> 1. Every process needs to know/use the same size for shmem ID's.
>> is that a real limitation?
>> Do you have a practicable example where one need to share memory of different size?
>
> i don't think this is the problem that chuck is referring to.
> afaiu, it's rather that the two processes need to have a priori knowledge of two different "thingies" in order to share some memory (without bad surprises): the ID and the size.
>
Things are like that because I copy code from your object "pix_share_read" and "pix_share_write"!
> from a UX pov the question is, why it's not possible to only have to share a single "thingy" (the ID) and have the others be shared implicitly.
Yes, automatically sharing the memory size could be possible, and can be useful in some situation.
Since I don't spend a lot's of time in pd currently, one should not expect a new version soon. But I accept patch!
cheers
c
>
> fmgdsaf
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list