I assume you're building via a custom Makefile and not Autools (configure)? If so, why not generate a dummy config.h in your makefile? I agree with IOhannes: this is standard operating procedure for auto tools projects and, in fact, I use the config.h pattern in other, non configure projects myself.
On Oct 9, 2024, at 7:21 PM, pd-dev-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:44:33 -0500 From: Miller Puckette <mpuckette@cloud.ucsd.edu mailto:mpuckette@cloud.ucsd.edu> Subject: [PD-dev] #include "config.h" in m_private_utils.h needed? To: pd-dev <pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at> Message-ID: <dbbf85f8-a1d7-4937-83fb-7a6176b9be31@cloud.ucsd.edu mailto:dbbf85f8-a1d7-4937-83fb-7a6176b9be31@cloud.ucsd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I heard from an ESPD tester that compiling ESPD sometimes fails because (for some reason) HAVE_CONFIG_H is defined by the complicated ESP compile chain but there's no "config.h" in the Pd sources so this fails:
#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H /* autotools might put all the HAVE_... defines into "config.h" */ # include "config.h" #endif
It seems a bit fragile anyway... is there a way to make the test more stringent? Perhaps require that some other symbol be defined by hand before pulling in "config.h", and/or having some way to specify what directory to look for config.h in?
In the meantime I already have to patch the Pd sources slightly to get ESPD to compile so I can work around this if I have to.
thanks
Miller
-------- Dan Wilcox danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/