jit.cellblock problems/bugs


    Sep 28 2008 | 11:52 am
    1) jit.cellblock seems slow to respond in in-place edit mode especially when scrolling. i am using 600 columns though...but this probably isn't particularly large. it works fine in all other selection modes...
    if i open the patch below in with the jit.cellblock in in-place edit mode it crashes max unless i stick a deferlow in there.
    2) i am having a problem populating 600 cells with incrementing values from uzi - anomolous values are inserted towards 600. this happens nearly every time but not always...
    expected behaviour - cells in row 0 count from 0 to 600
    actual behaviour - cells count from 0 to nearly 600 then the values become a bit random...
    max 5 running on windows xp/1.66ghz dual core/2gb RAM
    patch to demonstrate

    • Sep 29 2008 | 3:56 am
      Great demo patch.
      The cells at the end aren't random - they are values missing from within the earlier count. Somehow, the set command is getting confused in this case - I'll have a look at it to see if I can track the problem down. Thanks for the report!
      [ddg] Darwin Grosse
      On Sep 28, 2008, at 5:52 AM, donovan sellings wrote:
      > > 1) jit.cellblock seems slow to respond in in-place edit mode > especially when scrolling. i am using 600 columns though...but this > probably isn't particularly large. it works fine in all other > selection modes... > > if i open the patch below in with the jit.cellblock in in-place edit > mode it crashes max unless i stick a deferlow in there. > > 2) i am having a problem populating 600 cells with incrementing > values from uzi - anomolous values are inserted towards 600. this > happens nearly every time but not always... > > expected behaviour - cells in row 0 count from 0 to 600 > > actual behaviour - cells count from 0 to nearly 600 then the values > become a bit random... > > > > max 5 running on windows xp/1.66ghz dual core/2gb RAM
    • Sep 29 2008 | 9:05 am
      Darwin Grosse schrieb: > The cells at the end aren't random - they are values missing from within > the earlier count. Somehow, the set command is getting confused in this > case - I'll have a look at it to see if I can track the problem down. > Thanks for the report!
      To add and aid: On my PPC Powerbook it is actually fine, I couldn't encounter this problem, maybe its an intel/multiprocessor issue...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com