On Sep 13, 2008, at 8:24 PM, db m wrote:
Greets,
In CBLFS, we list DJBFFT as an optional package to the Liba52 build.
[ Note: I've not tested if liba52 benefits from djbfft routines or
not. ]
DJBFFT ;
Following the instructions in CBLFS for this package results in ;
/usr/lib{32, 64}/djbfft.a
/usr/include/{complex4.h, fftc4.h, fftfreq.h, fftr8.h, real8.h,
complex8.h, fftc8.h, fftr4.h, real4.h}
According to the djbfft homepage, this perhaps would be in error
(for the headers), quote;
"Now you can use djbfft in your programs by compiling with -I/usr/
local/djbfft/include
and linking with /usr/local/djbfft/lib/djbfft.a."
Perhaps the djbfft headers should be installed in '/usr/include/
djbfft/' or such??
At any rate.....
Liba52 ;
The configure option for liba52 to include djbfft support is ;
--enable-djbfft
....how-so-ever, this will result in the liba52 build trying to link
against the shared_lib target ;
-ldjbftt
....which of course won't happen, as the djbfft build only results
in the static_lib djbfft.a
Now, I searched the tomes and came up with this wiki discussion
about the
so-called 'Bernstein controversy' ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FFTW
This makes me question the appropriateness/correctness of including
DJBFFT as being
an 'optional' package to the Liba52 library build at all.
Comments anyone?
Regards,
Don
Enter today! Win a Hotmail Go-Kart to race at Bathurst.
I got a comment,
Would you like to be our proof reader and super duper link checker?
I mean this in most sincere regard.
-William
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
