Aha - sometimes things crash on OSX because of "minor" buffer overruns that linux just soldiers past. I'll break out a mac and try again...
M On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 03:03:09AM -0400, Dan Wilcox wrote: > Weird. It crashes for me on OSX when libpd is built with -O3 and the program > is built with or without -O3. > > *Note: I just finished reorganizing the libpd samples by language name. If > you do a pull, the multi instance test is now located in > samples/c/pdtest_multi > > Rebuilding and running it again yields: > > Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory. > Reason: 13 at address: 0x0000000000000000 > outlet_float (x=0x3f7ffc2a3f7ffc38, f=0) at m_obj.c:388 > 388 for (oc = x->o_connections; oc; oc = oc->oc_next) > > #0 outlet_float (x=0x3f7ffc2a3f7ffc38, f=0) at m_obj.c:388 > #1 0x000000010006f0b9 in outlet_bang (x=<value temporarily unavailable, due > to optimizations>) at m_obj.c:363 > #2 0x00000001000953f9 in metro_tick (x=0x10021ad90) at x_time.c:162 > #3 0x0000000100071010 in sched_tick () at m_sched.c:418 > #4 0x0000000100096733 in libpd_process_float (ticks=1, inBuffer=<value > temporarily unavailable, due to optimizations>, outBuffer=<value temporarily > unavailable, due to optimizations>) at z_libpd.c:185 > #5 0x0000000100000d67 in main () > > some frame detail: > > (gdb) frame 0 > #0 outlet_float (x=0x3f7ffc2a3f7ffc38, f=0) at m_obj.c:388 > 388 for (oc = x->o_connections; oc; oc = oc->oc_next) > (gdb) frame 1 > #1 0x000000010006f0b9 in outlet_bang (x=<value temporarily unavailable, due > to optimizations>) at m_obj.c:363 > 363 pd_bang(oc->oc_to); > (gdb) frame 2 > #2 0x00000001000953f9 in metro_tick (x=0x10021ad90) at x_time.c:162 > 162 outlet_bang(x->x_obj.ob_outlet); > (gdb) frame 3 > #3 0x0000000100071010 in sched_tick () at m_sched.c:418 > 418 (*c->c_fn)(c->c_owner); > (gdb) frame 4 > #4 0x0000000100096733 in libpd_process_float (ticks=1, inBuffer=<value > temporarily unavailable, due to optimizations>, outBuffer=<value temporarily > unavailable, due to optimizations>) at z_libpd.c:185 > 185 PROCESS(,) > (gdb) frame 5 > #5 0x0000000100000d67 in main () > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > > On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:15 AM, Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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#L33 > >> > >> <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 <[email protected]> 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 > >>>>> <[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 > >>> > >> > _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
