I see you point and I think it's a philosophical issue. In Supercollider, for example, I can't compile a UGen plugin and expect it to run on both Scsynth and Supernova, I rather have to pass the correct define ("SUPERNOVA"). Plugins are therefore usually built twice - with and without "-DSUPERNOVA" - and since they have different extensions and export different symbols, they can coexist. I think this could be a solution for Pd as well. If we had some naming convention for double precision externals, we can then just built both versions unconditionally and Pd will load the correct version. This can be automated by pd-lib-builder.
Christof
On 26.02.2020 13:39, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 26.02.20 13:00, Christof Ressi wrote:
I think I found it :-)
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pull/807#issuecomment-561251729 thanks!
if we want to pass the selected precision on to the entire ecosystem that depends on a given Pd runtime (that is: all externals that are built against a specific version of Pd), than the only solution is to replace the default value for PD_FLOATSIZE in m_pd.h.
I'm not sure I understand. Why do we have to change the default value? If someone wants to compile double precision externals, they just have to pass the -DPD_FLOATSIZE=64 to the build system (pd-lib-builder could
that's the point.
i don't want to "compile double precision externals". i want to compile an external that works with the installed version of Pd, no matter what endianness, data model or sample-type.
if the installed Pd has not been produced with a tweaked build (overriding *FLAGS, using a non-standard compiler,...) then any external that was built via the standard procedure (using default *FLAGS and compiler,...) should "just work".
endianness, data model,... are kept consistent by using the "default" compiler for your environment/OS.
sample-type is defined via a public header that comes with Pd. why would it define a value that does not match the Pd runtime that provides it?
enabling a feature via a configure-flag is (at least for me) a way of saying that "from now on, whatever i do with the so-generated project (Pd) will have this feature enabled".
I don't see the conflict, to be honest. Also, I don't think there's a *practical* difference between setting a configure flag and setting the CPPFLAGS variable.
that was my point: it's equally simple to use any of the two methods. but using CPPFLAGS supposedly tells you that you are now cruising dangerous waters. (some people might not smell any difference; but if for them both options are the same, /they/ are not a compelling reason to prefer one over the other)
In your example, both happen at configure time. The big advantage of having a configure flag is that it is self-documenting ("./configure --help").
yes. that's the advantage. i don't think it outweighs the drawback though.
just to make clear: i'm not at all opposed to adding a configure flag to select the precision (whether it's "--enable-double", "--enable-double-precision" or "--enable-precision=double" doesn't matter though i like the latter better). but that flag should be reflected in the public API.
fgasdrm IOhannes
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev