I don't feel strongly, but would be inclined to just upgrade to fftw3. The old code will remain in svn and available to anyone who wants it.
Chris David Hotham wrote: > I think you misunderstand. The API differences are not between 32-bit and > 64-bit; rather they're between FFTW2 and FFTW3 > > - The new (FFTW3) version of the script is verified as working in both > 32-bit and 64-bit > - I expect that the current (FFTW2) version would work in 64-bit, if we > either found or compiled a 64-bit FFTW2 library. > > The basic interface is the same in both, so most people won't notice the > difference. > > I'm new around here, so don't expect that my opinion ought to carry a lot of > weight. In particular, I've no idea whatever how much code there is out > there that relies on the existing (FFTW2) interface. But I'd suggest: > > - rename the existing fftw as fftw2 > - call the upgraded version plain old fftw > > ... so that the default is to get the newer library (which works with the > same basic interface as the older library); but any legacy code that relies > on the existing interface can easily use fftw2 instead of fftw and avoid any > further rewrite of their own code. > > (This might need some careful commenting or perhaps a better name for fftw2, > as otherwise one might easily think that fftw2 was newer than fftw). > > David ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
