sounds right to me, too, for sure. if it doesn't even fix a regression, it's certainly better not to hurt performance. thanks for the tests on this! so it better remains a challenge for 0.57.
cheers, ben On Tue, Nov 4, 2025, 14:26 Miller Puckette via Pd-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I'm convinced -- reverting 36d7be0e :) > > M > > > On 11/4/25 2:16 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 13:47 +0100, Miller Puckette via Pd-dev wrote: > >> Yep, that's what's happening to me as well - I can revert 36d7be0e > >> but then the test patch misbehaves. > > I now also checked 0.56-0, 0.55-0, 0.54-0 and the patch misbehaves in > > the same way. > > > > As I see it: > > > > * 36d7be0e fixes an issue - that is old and certainly not a > > regression of 0.56 - at huge performance penalty > > > > * All the GOP related regressions introduced since 0.56-0 are fixed > > in current master and are not relying on 36d7be0e > > > > By principle of least surprise I'd vote for leaving 36d7be0e out in the > > upcoming minor release. > > > > Roman > > > > > > --- > > [email protected] - the Pd developers' mailinglist > > > https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/XZN5CLH27Y3QMLZ5FU4TK27DEI3Y3M6D/ > > > --- > [email protected] - the Pd developers' mailinglist > > https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/SEUQYM3SC5G6YUS53VLOHZ4RIEMIRREE/ > >
--- [email protected] - the Pd developers' mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/4JUO7GS5UOP222ES3UYZ7XH3PP2SIYAL/
