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 <[email protected]> 
> 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 <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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, [email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Oliver Greschke <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> 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: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev 
> <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev

Reply via email to