On 03/26/2015 09:49 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > Hi > > Attached patch exhibits different behavior depending on where and how > [routeOSC] was built. It seems pre-built binaries from the Debian > repositories insert an empty symbol (see attached patch) in the output, > but only on amd64 and armhf (Raspberry Pi), but not i386. Also, when I > compile routeOSC myself on those platforms (amd64, armhf), the result > shows the expected behavior. > > routeOSC from Pd-extended works as expected on all platforms. > > It looks to me as if the way the external is compiled is responsible for > the differences. Among others I'm in charge of the package pd-osc in the > Debian repository, but I don't have a clue how to track such a problem. > That is why I am asking the list. Any clues?
are you sure? i think that this is a problem of the actually installed versions of pd-osc (maybe you are confusing the current debian package version "0.2-1" with the prior "0.1-2"?) in any case, i'm running sid/amd64 and get: OUTPUT: 99 EXPECTED: YES > > How likely is it that other externals are not working exactly the same > on different platforms? I'm more concerned about 'not exactly' than > about 'not at all'. unlikely. or likely, depends on your definition of "not exactly". e.g. some externals will make use of special instructions (think SIMD) when compiled for a given CPU (SSE4 is likely not available on armhf). fgmard IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
