On 5/29/24 21:03, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Can't .pd_linux, .pd_darwin, .d_fat, .dll be 64 bit? As well as .m_amd64, .d_arm64 and .l_arm64 and stuff? I mean, probably they "can", but the idea was to create new extension possibilities to distinct single and double precision, right?
depends on what you mean by "can". technically they could. practically, Pd64 will *not* load an external that ends with .pd_darwin.see the mailinglist archives and the github issues for a lengthy discussion why it is like this.
While we're at it, can i386 be 64? really? As in .linux-i386-64.so, .darwin-i386-64.so and .windows-i386-64.dll?
sure, why not? the "double" floattype has been around for some time.a quick wikipedia check shows that one of the first (C)PU to implement IEEE 754 (the floating point standard that defines "double" floats as we know them) was the Intel 8087, a 16bit processor (and famous co-processor for the 8086)
It would be capable of running Pd64 (".cpm-x86_16-64.so").
fmdsafds
IOhannes
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
