deferlow no longer needed to avoid stack overflow?

    arne
    Mar 01 2012 | 1:49 am
    I've grown accustomed to sticking in a deferlow when incrementing through long colls in what is essentially a FOR LOOP; withit, the dreaded "stack overflow" message would (logically) pop up. I always assumed that this was because my loop would take over the processor, and Max couldn't do all the things it needs to do.
    Now (Max 6.0.4), it no longer seems necessary. Did I miss something?
    • ch
      Mar 01 2012 | 5:33 pm
      with max 5.1.9 I got no stack overflow with your last example. and the timer tells me "0." ! (I got 1000. with the deferlow example)
    • broc
      Mar 01 2012 | 6:20 pm
      I can confirm stack overflow with Max 5.1.9 (and 2000. with deferlow).
      @Ch: Did you check if the target coll was actually written?
    • ch
      Mar 02 2012 | 3:37 pm
      yes, it was