On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:22 +0200, "András Murányi" <muran...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/7/6 Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> > > > > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:36 +0200, "András Murányi" <muran...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 00:12, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I should, there is a specific question of whether these two are still > > > > needed: > > > > > > > > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/64BitLinux< > > http://puredata.info/docs/developer/64BitLinux> > > > > > > http://puredata.info/docs/**developer/**BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuI** > > > > ntrepid< > > http://puredata.info/docs/developer/BuildingPdExtended64bitUbuntuIntrepid> > > > > > > > > 0.43 should work fine on all 64-bit systems (never tested Windows tho). > > > > > > > > .hc > > > > > > > > > > Well, do these apply to to 0.42 in any way? If not any more, they can go. > > > However, it could be nice to have a short writeup on the history of > > > 64-bit > > > in Pd, most importantly stating the version from which it does not make a > > > difference any more. > > > > > > Andras > > > > That's a good idea. As far as I know, Pd vanilla 0.42.5 was the first > > version that was fully usable on 64-bit. Pd-extended 0.43 is the first > > version where the all the libs are expected to run on 64-bit (at least > > on GNU/Linux, still no Gem on Mac OS X). Here's my quick stab at this > > page and I don't even have a 64-bit OS. Can the 64-bit people add and > > edit this to something useful :-D > > > > http://puredata.info/docs/64BitSupport > > > > .hc > > > > Cool! Now, I'd add some notes on the practical implications of this... > what > about you moving the two previously mentioned pages under this new one > (sorry i'm not confident moving pages in the wiki... i've messed things > up > before) and me adding the context?
It seems the other 64-bit pages in the developer section are about building Pd on 64-bit GNU/Linux platforms. I think that those instructions are no longer needed for 0.43, so perhaps they should be archived or at least marked as only relevant to old versions. > (Also, someone could make this "an XXX bits float can store a YYY bits > integer" a bit more clear as I personally still don't really understand > it. > I also remember vaguely some criticism of this system, that it is not > very > efficient? Matju? If you guys explain it here on the list I'll be happy > to > add it to the wiki.) > > Andras With a 32-bit float, some of the bits go to representing the exponent part, therefore there is not the full 32-bits available to represent an integer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list