On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:46 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-10-31 15:39, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:59 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 2011-10-30 20:03, Roman Haefeli wrote:
Building iemnet on the Windows build machine still failed: http://autobuild.puredata.info/auto-build/2011-10-30/logs/2011-10-30_03.31.0...
seems like the template/Makefile assumes that the "shared code" doesn't know anything about Pd.
i'd like to hear hans' opinion about this (e.g. why)
Hmm, probably purely because the shared library is not linking against pd.dll. Perhaps there are issues with that many circular links in Windows. I know that Windows linking is testy, that's why there is a pd.exe which links to a pd.dll. Try linking the shared library to pd and see if it works.
what i meant is, that the PD_INCLUDES do not get propagated to the SHARED_CFLAGS, hence the compiler cannot find headers like m_pd.h; once that is done, we will get to the linker problems.
but all there problems are solved for the external itself, so i wondered whether there is a reason to not apply those flags to the shared code.
I don't know either way, I haven't tried it. The shared code I was working with was very plain C. So you're the first to try it. We'll see how it goes. I am not opposed to including the possibility of the shared code linking to Pd if it doesn't break other things.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. - from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs