On Nov 19, 2006, at 5:13 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 19.11.2006 um 05:00 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
On Nov 18, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 18.11.2006 um 22:16 schrieb Mathieu Bouchard:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I really doubt that the gcc devs put a lot of effort into
something that has no effect. Perhaps not for Pd, that may be
true. But they are talking about vectorizing loops, it may not
be the best thing to vectorize, but there are definitely
vectorizable loops in Pd.
perhaps it would be a good start to reimplement newbytes(n)
using memalign(16,n) instead of malloc(n).
A few years ago i introduced aligned memory allocation in the pd-
devel branch.
Have you tried submitting a patch? It would be at least useful in
Pd-extended. How big a difference did it make?
I have a better idea. People interested in improvements can easily
make a diff from the devel branch.
The aligned memory allocation is part of the SIMD codelets which
have been part of pd-devel for a long time.
It generally accepted procedure in the projects that I've seen that
people guide their own code thru the procedures of submitting patches
and getting them accepted. I think that makes sense here too.
Its coming quite clear that devel/dd is fork since the devel/dd devs
are resistant or unwilling to try to get code into pd-MAIN. That's
too bad, I think we will all be the worse for it, but its your choice
to do so. I think it would be helpful to make it clear that its a
fork instead of continuing to skirt the issue.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
_______________________________________________
PD-dev mailing list
PD-dev@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
