Le 2011-12-02 à 12:41:00, Charles Henry a écrit :
You make a good point--I wasn't counting the data transfer that occurs
between registers or the way that the compiler breaks out the steps
involved, and of which I am mostly ignorant.
Ok, well, when you copy, there is a pipeline that goes from
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> Le 2011-12-01 à 10:39:00, Charles Henry a écrit :
>
>
>> When using [*~ 0], the inlet and outlet are borrowed. The scalar multiply
>> operation is performed in place and no data transfer occurs.
>
>
> What do you call « data transfer » ? m
Le 2011-12-01 à 10:39:00, Charles Henry a écrit :
When using [*~ 0], the inlet and outlet are borrowed. The scalar
multiply operation is performed in place and no data transfer occurs.
What do you call « data transfer » ? multiplying in place by a constant
involves as many reads and writes a
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> Hi João
>
> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:04 +0100, João Pais wrote:
>> would it make sense to do a general test patch, where these and more
>> objects could be tested empirically? or, put your patches somewhere, so
>> that other people can work o
Hi João
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 16:04 +0100, João Pais wrote:
> would it make sense to do a general test patch, where these and more
> objects could be tested empirically? or, put your patches somewhere, so
> that other people can work on them, and have a test-repository?
I attached my test set
Le 2011-12-01 à 17:37:00, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
My question ("Is there something more efficient to turn signals on and
off than [*~]?") and the things you replied triggered me to do those
performance tests. Somehow it is easier for me to deal with stuff that I
empirically experience than with
Le 2011-12-01 à 08:21:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
- Original Message -
From: Mathieu Bouchard
One is made for blocksizes at least 8, and the other for blocksizes 1,2,4.
Ok, so perf8 corresponds to "at least 8". Thanks.
Well, actually it corresponds to "multiples of 8". You can s
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> Le 2011-12-01 à 15:24:00, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
>
>
>> reason, let's just use an invented arbitrary unit for expressing the CPU
>> time (ct) consumed by an object. It turned out that [gate~] uses 0.52ct
>> when it is on and 0.4ct when it
Hi Matju
> Are you receiving what I write on IRC ?
Not always, I think, but I remember the parts you posted below.
My question ("Is there something more efficient to turn signals on and
off than [*~]?") and the things you replied triggered me to do those
performance tests. Somehow it is easier
- Original Message -
> From: Mathieu Bouchard
> To: Jonathan Wilkes
> Cc: Roman Haefeli ; PD list
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [PD] Findings regarding performance
>
> Le 2011-12-01 à 07:00:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
&g
Le 2011-12-01 à 15:24:00, Roman Haefeli a écrit :
reason, let's just use an invented arbitrary unit for expressing the CPU
time (ct) consumed by an object. It turned out that [gate~] uses 0.52ct
when it is on and 0.4ct when it is off. But how much does [*~ ] use? No
matter whether turned on or o
Le 2011-12-01 à 07:00:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
After looking at d_arithmetic.c, I'm curiouswhy there is
scalartimes_perform and scalartimes_perf8?
One is made for blocksizes at least 8, and the other for blocksizes 1,2,4.
Perf8 is a kind of explicit loop-unrolling, coded to greatly reduc
This repeated buffer only applies to signals sent inside that subpatch, and
signals sent out with the [s~ ] object. (i didn't test throw~, but i would
guess it's the same)
if you just use an [outlet~] object, the buffer is not repeated.
see attached test patch if you don't believe me.
On Fri,
> [inlet~] [inlet]
> ||
> |[switch~ ]
> |
> [outlet~]
Besides clicking problems which you might not care about, If you send a zero to
switch~ while there is still audio in the buffer you'll get the buffer repeated
over and over. This is why I use both a *~ AND a switc
would it make sense to do a general test patch, where these and more
objects could be tested empirically? or, put your patches somewhere, so
that other people can work on them, and have a test-repository?
performance considerations aside, I have a reason to use [*~] with line~,
instead of s
After looking at d_arithmetic.c, I'm curiouswhy there is scalartimes_perform
and scalartimes_perf8?
-Jonathan
- Original Message -
> From: Roman Haefeli
> To: PD list
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 9:24 AM
> Subject: [PD] Findings regarding per
Hi all
Lately I was asking myself if some of own patching practices regarding
performance optimization were justified or based on some wrong beliefs.
I often use [*~ ] as on/off signal gates and now started be concerned
about using an object that performs a relatively complex task
(multiplication
17 matches
Mail list logo
