Le 30/05/2024 à 03:14, Alexandre Torres Porres a écrit :
While we're at it, as I only know about macOS, let me ask about windows and linux... So, Windows 11, the current version, is only for 64 bit architectures, right? so one cannot install pd 32 bit on it. As for Linux, is there any most recent version only for 64-bit architecture?
debian is known to run on multiples architecture : https://wiki.debian.org/SupportedArchitectures anyway, you need a 64 bit OS if you want to address more than 3Go of memory. cheers c
cheers Em qua., 29 de mai. de 2024 às 21:13, Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com <mailto:por...@gmail.com>> escreveu: I see, not being well versed, I see I'm again confusing 64-bit architecture with double precision. And I'm still confused on what "CPU-architecture" actually means. Let's see if I get things straight. Older macs with intel chips can run two different architectures: *i386* (Intel 32bit) and *amd64* (Intel 64bit). This depends on the OS and the last to allow i386 was Mojave (10.14). Newer arm64 is obviously only 64bit. I'm positive this is what it is, but it still strikes me as a bit uncanny that a computer can have more than one architecture, as my intuition would tell me that the architecture of my chip can only be of one type. So I guess I don't really get the concept of "cpu-architecture". Anyway, things like this should be made clearer for dummies like me in the manual and stuff. Cheers Em qua., 29 de mai. de 2024 às 18:44, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@iem.at <mailto:zmoel...@iem.at>> escreveu: 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 _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at <mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at> mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list <https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list> _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
