Well, there's currently no way to get signals on a guaranteed boundary, but that's something I want to do in the future. I also want to allow objects to delay creating their input and output vectors (possibly avoiding promoting scalars to vectors for efficiency, and also allowing obejcts to create and/or deal with alternative vector sizes, for instance for multichannel signals).
I've also been looking at your polynomial cos~ approximations - I can't get them to run as efficiently as you seem to be able to, and couldn't immediately figure out if I needed to change compilers, or compile flags, or what. But that also is on the list :) Miller on it once and didn't go deeply into all the On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 10:04:09PM +0100, Claude Heiland-Allen wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any guarantee about alignment of signal vector data? > > If not, should there be, in the future? > > Or should one conditionally `dsp_add()` their specific-alignment-needing > kernels dependent on what the `dsp` method actually gets? > > Context: > > In some code unrelated to Pd, using GCC vector intrinsics (not CPU-specific) > I got a near-2x speed boost by recompiling the same code to target a newer > CPU, vs the binary compiled for an older CPU. > > The old idea of compiling a machine-specific math~.pd_linux (or whatever) to > speed up everything by overwriting internal objects is also on my mind. > > Thanks, > > Claude > -- > https://mathr.co.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
