On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 10:30 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/26/2010 08:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > > Anyway, I think the solution would be to use 64bit float as the index. > > true. > > > In 64-bit Pd, this isn't an issue anymore (or more correct: It will be > > with _much_ larger tables). > > what do you mean by "64-bit Pd"? > it _could_ mean 2 thing (for me): > - - any (newish) Pd compiled on 64bit platform > - - a Pd that uses 64bit (double-precision) floats for it's internal > t_sample/t_float type, regardless of the architecture it runs on > > #1 is simply wrong, as all "proper" Pd's (that is, _not_ Pd-anywhere) > use 32bit (single precision) float for numbers. so on my amd64 system, i > still have the same issue > > #2 would be the solution, but even though i started double-ifying Pd > some time ago, i haven't done anything in the last 2 years or so, which > made the project stall. so Pd is not double-precision ready yet (i think > it is still only the sound-generators like [phasor~] and [osc~] that are > missing)
Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, I was believing, that Pd compiled on an amd64 maschine would operate with 64bit floating point numbers internally. Too bad, this isn't the case. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list