I think it was optimized since I had already made libpd, not from the sampes/.../multi directory. But anyhow I re-did it as you suggest with the same result.... can't make it fail...
cheers M
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:03:28AM -0400, Dan Wilcox wrote:
You ran it without the optimizations since I added the debug option. Remove DEBUG=true from line 33 in the Makefile: https://github.com/libpd/libpd/blob/master/samples/c_samples/multi/Makefile#... https://github.com/libpd/libpd/blob/master/samples/c_samples/multi/Makefile#L33 and do a full clean before rebuilding:
cd ../../../ && make clobber && cd - && make
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
On Apr 21, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
Hi Dan et al -
I gave this a try:
git clone https://github.com/libpd/libpd.git
[copies pd sources into libpd/pure-data]
cd libpd make
cd samples/c_samples/multi/ make ./multi_pdtest multi_test.pd `pwd`
and got output:
print: 0 1003-frequency: bang print: 0 1004-frequency: bang 1003-frequency: 1 1004-frequency: 2 1.000000 1.000000 0.999999 0.999999 0.999998 0.999998 0.999997 0.999997 1.000000 1.000000 0.999998 0.999998 0.999996 0.999996 0.999995 0.999995 print: 1 0.999944 0.999944 0.999943 0.999943 0.999942 0.999942 0.999941 0.999941 print: 1 0.999815 0.999815 0.999810 0.999810 0.999804 0.999804 0.999799 0.999799 print: 2 print: 2
This on Fedora 21, 64 bits, Intel hardware.
I guess something subtle is happening, maybe in Pd and unrelated to libpd?
cheers Miller
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 06:00:15PM -0400, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Howdy Miller,
Following up from the dev list last year, I added your multi instance test to the c samples included with libpd: https://github.com/libpd/libpd/tree/master/samples/c_samples/multi https://github.com/libpd/libpd/tree/master/samples/c_samples/multi
The one thing I want to double check is the changes to z_libpd.c you mentioned in http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019832.html: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019832.html:
Here's how I modified libpd_wrapper/z_libpd.c:
55d54 < sys_time = 0; 110c109
< sched_tick(sys_time + sys_time_per_dsp_tick);
sched_tick();
130c129
< sched_tick(sys_time + sys_time_per_dsp_tick); \
sched_tick(); \Currently, that line is https://github.com/libpd/libpd/blob/master/libpd_wrapper/z_libpd.c#L171 https://github.com/libpd/libpd/blob/master/libpd_wrapper/z_libpd.c#L171 and I’m getting a segfault if I replace it with sched_tick(); AND set gcc optimization to -O3
Here’s a gdb backtrace:
#0 0x0000000100091f2f in outlet_float (x=0x3f7ffc2a3f7ffc38, f=0.999937057) at m_obj.c:388 #1 0x00000001000ac572 in pdfloat_bang (x=0x10021ac20) at x_connective.c:89 #2 0x0000000100093d58 in pd_bang (x=0x10021ac20) at m_pd.c:267 #3 0x0000000100091ddd in outlet_bang (x=0x10021ae20) at m_obj.c:363 #4 0x00000001000c45e4 in metro_tick (x=0x10021ada0) at x_time.c:162 #5 0x0000000100095021 in sched_tick () at m_sched.c:418 #6 0x00000001000c5d4d in libpd_process_float (ticks=1, inBuffer=0x7fff5fbffa50, outBuffer=0x7fff5fbff750) at z_libpd.c:173 #7 0x0000000100000d18 in main ()
If I don’t optimize, it works fine:
print: 0 1003-frequency: bang print: 0 1004-frequency: bang 1003-frequency: 1 1004-frequency: 2 1.000000 1.000000 0.999999 0.999999 0.999998 0.999998 0.999997 0.999997 1.000000 1.000000 0.999998 0.999998 0.999996 0.999996 0.999995 0.999995 print: 1 0.999944 0.999944 0.999943 0.999943 0.999942 0.999942 0.999941 0.999941 print: 1 0.999815 0.999815 0.999810 0.999810 0.999804 0.999804 0.999799 0.999799 print: 2 print: 2
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Kjetil Matheussen k.s.matheussen@gmail.com wrote:
But for libpd, are you sure you need to add anything? Can't just the user call the pdinstance_new and pd_setinstance functions directly?
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019832.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019832.html
(BTW. When I wrote about libpds, I hadn't forgotten about the support for pd instances, but since I didn't have all details in my head then, I didn't mention it. I should have though.)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.com mailto:danomatika@gmail.com> wrote: This should be possible with the current version of libpd which includes Miller’s multiple instance updates, see http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019839.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2014-05/019839.html
I just haven’t gotten around to adding libpd-specific wrapper functions for this yet, but Miller provides code in that dev list exchange.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/
On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:00 AM, pd-dev-request@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-dev-request@lists.iem.at wrote:
From: Oliver Greschke <info@o-g-sus.de mailto:info@o-g-sus.de> Subject: [PD-dev] Can somebody help to create a desktop / VST / AU version of a PD / libPD / app ? Date: April 21, 2015 at 3:15:44 AM EDT To: pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at
Hi, I am the creator of the Elastic Drums iOS app (with great PD help from Matt Davey). It’s made with PureData, libPD and Objective-C. I got asked a couple of times now, if there will be ever a standalone desktop version or even better Plugin (VST, AU) version of the app.
As far as I know, there are not ready to use workarounds to do so. Which is sad, because I can imagine a lot of fantastic plugins emerging from PD
Has somebody here some experience with doing such ports? Then please contact me.
Cheers, Oliver
info@o-g-sus.de mailto:info@o-g-sus.de
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at mailto:Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev