On Saturday, August 29, 2020, 03:04:25 PM EDT, Alexandre Torres Porres
<por...@gmail.com> wrote:
Em qui., 6 de ago. de 2020 às 16:08, Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com>
escreveu:
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020, 2:07:09 PM EDT, matthew brandi
> <mfbra...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Dear people
> In my role as village idiot, I am asking whether the string "fwd" in a
> message has a
special meaning to inlet.
> Naively, I was expecting inlet to pass the string to the subpatch, but it
> seems not
to. See example patch attached.
AFAICT that's a regression due to the way Pd Vanilla implemented message
forwarding for
[inlet~ fwd]. That's a feature that allows a signal inlet of a
subpatch/abstraction to forward
non-signal messages to the right outlet of [inlet~ fwd]. (The right outlet
sprouts when the
"fwd" argument is present.)
Another regression-- there is no longer an error if you try to send a
non-signal message to
[inlet~].
Another regression-- [inlet~ fwd] unconditionally allocates space on the stack
to copy the
entire incoming message. If you generate a long enough message this will blow
the stack
and cause Pd to crash. Esp. important given that Windows stack is much smaller
than the RAM
available for heap allocation on most machines.
Also-- I *think* Pd Vanilla doesn't forward pointer messages through [inlet~
fwd]. It appeared to be an oversight-- at least I didn't see any comment about
it.
A GSoC student spent some time reimplementing this in Purr Data, so none of
thiese should be
issues there.
> I think it's a good idea if you're changing and fixing stuff to also send a
> PR to vanilla as a proposal. Would you consider doing that as well?
Before you ask that, have a look at the PRs. You can view the list of open PRs
for Pure Data Vanilla here:
https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/pulls
It appears Christof (Spacechild1) submitted a patch for this almost a month
ago. So it wouldn't make sense to send another
PR for this same fix. Christof's patch should work just fine to solve these
issues.
If you're asking in general, that's unfortunately just not practical. We'd have
to manually create a new patch set and test it for Vanilla, for (nearly) every
single change we make. It's much easier to just report here when I find
crashers-- Miller and Christof are quite quick to fix them. They know the
Vanilla build/test/development process much better than I do so that seems the
much preferable route for everyone involved.
Best,Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
