[Csnd] ftgentmp 0 or ftgentmp 110 .. both not killing the table?

Date	2009-05-17 09:35
From	"'2+"
Subject	[Csnd] ftgentmp 0 or ftgentmp 110 .. both not killing the table?
	hi, am still stuck at ftgentmp but i want to stick to this cuz i want everything in a inst scope (to keep the whole inst as a single string handled by python) yes i read the manual and a bit of progress here .. but still don'y get it if i have: itp ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 1 itot ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 in the inst 1001 of the orc the rendering says: new alloc for instr 1001: ftable 101: ftable 102: B 0.000 .. 0.271 T 0.271 TT 0.271 M: 8818.6 9462.0 new alloc for instr 1001: ftable 103: ftable 104: new alloc for instr 1001: ftable 105: ftable 106: B 0.271 .. 0.740 T 0.740 TT 0.740 M: 29616.0 31645.3 new alloc for instr 1001: ftable 107: ftable 108: i expected that the table will be killed after each usage of the inst but table number is increasing .. is it not killed? or i just shouldn'y worry? anyway if i change those lines to: itp ftgentmp 110, 0, 16384, 10, 1 itot ftgentmp 120, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 it goes like this: new alloc for instr 1001: WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 ftable 110: WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 ftable 120: new alloc for instr 1001: WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 ftable 110: WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 ftable 120: well replacing is like killing the old one .. but warning is not cool and i like the former way cuz i can totally forget about the table number aspect when letting python spit put the inst string is the former one dangerous? .. i mean is it gonna eat up the ram? oh am on juanty so the ver of cs is... Csound version 5.08 (double samples) Apr 14 2009 libsndfile-1.0.17 tia -- SaRiGaMa's Oil Vending Orchestra is podcasting: http://sarigama.namaste.jp/podcast/rss.xml and supplying oil.py for free: http://oilpy.blogspot.com/

Date	2009-05-17 14:46
From	Andres Cabrera
Subject	[Csnd] Re: ftgentmp 0 or ftgentmp 110 .. both not killing the table?
	Hi, The tables are destroyed. It's just that the numbers continue going up. Try this: sr = 44100 ksmps = 128 nchnls = 2 0dbfs = 1 instr 1 ifno ftgentmp 0, 0, 512, 10, 1 print ifno endin instr 2 print ftlen(p4) endin i 1 0 10 i 2 2 1 101 i 1 5 10 i 2 7 1 102 i 2 12 1 101 i 2 17 1 102 e Which will produce this: SECTION 1: new alloc for instr 1: ftable 101: instr 1: ifno = 101.000 B 0.000 .. 2.000 T 2.000 TT 2.000 M: 0.00000 0.00000 new alloc for instr 2: instr 2: #i0 = 512.000 B 2.000 .. 5.000 T 5.001 TT 5.001 M: 0.00000 0.00000 new alloc for instr 1: ftable 102: instr 1: ifno = 102.000 B 5.000 .. 7.000 T 7.001 TT 7.001 M: 0.00000 0.00000 instr 2: #i0 = 512.000 B 7.000 .. 12.000 T 11.999 TT 11.999 M: 0.00000 0.00000 INIT ERROR in instr 2: Invalid ftable no. 101.000000 #i0 ftlen.i p4 instr 2: #i0 = -1.000 B 12.000 - note deleted. i2 had 1 init errors B 12.000 .. 17.000 T 17.000 TT 17.000 M: 0.00000 0.00000 INIT ERROR in instr 2: Invalid ftable no. 102.000000 #i0 ftlen.i p4 instr 2: #i0 = -1.000 B 17.000 - note deleted. i2 had 1 init errors The tables are no longer valid after the instrument instance that created it has finished. Cheers, Andrés On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:35 AM, '2+ wrote: > hi, > am still stuck at ftgentmp > but i want to stick to this cuz i want everything in a inst scope > (to keep the whole inst as a single string handled by python) > yes i read the manual and a bit of progress here .. but still don'y get it > > if i have: > > itp ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 1 > itot ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 > > in the inst 1001 of the orc > the rendering says: > > new alloc for instr 1001: > ftable 101: > ftable 102: > B 0.000 .. 0.271 T 0.271 TT 0.271 M: 8818.6 9462.0 > new alloc for instr 1001: > ftable 103: > ftable 104: > new alloc for instr 1001: > ftable 105: > ftable 106: > B 0.271 .. 0.740 T 0.740 TT 0.740 M: 29616.0 31645.3 > new alloc for instr 1001: > ftable 107: > ftable 108: > > i expected that the table will be killed after each usage of the inst > but table number is increasing .. is it not killed? or i just shouldn'y worry? > > anyway if i change those lines to: > > itp ftgentmp 110, 0, 16384, 10, 1 > itot ftgentmp 120, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 > > it goes like this: > > new alloc for instr 1001: > WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 > ftable 110: > WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 > ftable 120: > new alloc for instr 1001: > WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 > ftable 110: > WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 > ftable 120: > > well replacing is like killing the old one .. but warning is not cool > and i like the former way cuz i can totally forget about the table number aspect > when letting python spit put the inst string > > is the former one dangerous? .. i mean is it gonna eat up the ram? > > oh am on juanty so the ver of cs is... > > Csound version 5.08 (double samples) Apr 14 2009 > libsndfile-1.0.17 > > tia > > -- > SaRiGaMa's Oil Vending Orchestra > is podcasting: > http://sarigama.namaste.jp/podcast/rss.xml > and supplying oil.py for free: > http://oilpy.blogspot.com/ > > > Send bugs reports to this list. > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" > -- Andrés

Date	2009-05-17 21:02
From	"'2+"
Subject	[Csnd] Re: Re: ftgentmp 0 or ftgentmp 110 .. both not killing the table?
	thanx! am using tons of prints to check my python code .. i should have thougt the same way in csound too ;) and ftlen is a good thing to know about now i can use ftgentmp without hesitation .. hope this opcode survive forever thanx for building a nice example On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Andres Cabrera wrote: > Hi, > The tables are destroyed. It's just that the numbers continue going > up. Try this: > > > > > > > sr = 44100 > ksmps = 128 > nchnls = 2 > 0dbfs = 1 > > instr 1 > ifno ftgentmp 0, 0, 512, 10, 1 > print ifno > endin > > instr 2 > print ftlen(p4) > endin > > > > i 1 0 10 > i 2 2 1 101 > i 1 5 10 > i 2 7 1 102 > i 2 12 1 101 > i 2 17 1 102 > e > > > > Which will produce this: > > > SECTION 1: > new alloc for instr 1: > ftable 101: > instr 1: ifno = 101.000 > B 0.000 .. 2.000 T 2.000 TT 2.000 M: 0.00000 0.00000 > new alloc for instr 2: > instr 2: #i0 = 512.000 > B 2.000 .. 5.000 T 5.001 TT 5.001 M: 0.00000 0.00000 > new alloc for instr 1: > ftable 102: > instr 1: ifno = 102.000 > B 5.000 .. 7.000 T 7.001 TT 7.001 M: 0.00000 0.00000 > instr 2: #i0 = 512.000 > B 7.000 .. 12.000 T 11.999 TT 11.999 M: 0.00000 0.00000 > INIT ERROR in instr 2: Invalid ftable no. 101.000000 > #i0 ftlen.i p4 > instr 2: #i0 = -1.000 > B 12.000 - note deleted. i2 had 1 init errors > B 12.000 .. 17.000 T 17.000 TT 17.000 M: 0.00000 0.00000 > INIT ERROR in instr 2: Invalid ftable no. 102.000000 > #i0 ftlen.i p4 > instr 2: #i0 = -1.000 > B 17.000 - note deleted. i2 had 1 init errors > > > The tables are no longer valid after the instrument instance that > created it has finished. > > Cheers, > Andrés > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:35 AM, '2+ wrote: >> hi, >> am still stuck at ftgentmp >> but i want to stick to this cuz i want everything in a inst scope >> (to keep the whole inst as a single string handled by python) >> yes i read the manual and a bit of progress here .. but still don'y get it >> >> if i have: >> >> itp ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 1 >> itot ftgentmp 0, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 >> >> in the inst 1001 of the orc >> the rendering says: >> >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> ftable 101: >> ftable 102: >> B 0.000 .. 0.271 T 0.271 TT 0.271 M: 8818.6 9462.0 >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> ftable 103: >> ftable 104: >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> ftable 105: >> ftable 106: >> B 0.271 .. 0.740 T 0.740 TT 0.740 M: 29616.0 31645.3 >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> ftable 107: >> ftable 108: >> >> i expected that the table will be killed after each usage of the inst >> but table number is increasing .. is it not killed? or i just shouldn'y worry? >> >> anyway if i change those lines to: >> >> itp ftgentmp 110, 0, 16384, 10, 1 >> itot ftgentmp 120, 0, 16384, 10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 1 >> >> it goes like this: >> >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 >> ftable 110: >> WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 >> ftable 120: >> new alloc for instr 1001: >> WARNING: replacing previous ftable 110 >> ftable 110: >> WARNING: replacing previous ftable 120 >> ftable 120: >> >> well replacing is like killing the old one .. but warning is not cool >> and i like the former way cuz i can totally forget about the table number aspect >> when letting python spit put the inst string >> >> is the former one dangerous? .. i mean is it gonna eat up the ram? >> >> oh am on juanty so the ver of cs is... >> >> Csound version 5.08 (double samples) Apr 14 2009 >> libsndfile-1.0.17 >> >> tia >> >> -- >> SaRiGaMa's Oil Vending Orchestra >> is podcasting: >> http://sarigama.namaste.jp/podcast/rss.xml >> and supplying oil.py for free: >> http://oilpy.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> Send bugs reports to this list. >> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" >> > > > > -- > > > Andrés > > > Send bugs reports to this list. > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound" -- SaRiGaMa's Oil Vending Orchestra is podcasting: http://sarigama.namaste.jp/podcast/rss.xml and supplying oil.py for free: http://oilpy.blogspot.com/