Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

Hah point taken. Let’s just say I’m playing a little devil’s advocate after fielding open source support requests for free the last week … Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com > On Dec 15

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

If Pd externals could be built for PDP11, I would support it in Makefile.pdlibbuilder. Even when very few people still use Apple ppc it's nice to be able to support it. But not at the expense of other platforms of course. If you (or anyone else) encounter specific problems when building on OSX 10.

[PD] [OT] CUBE Fest 2016: Call for Participation

CUBE Fest 2016: Massively Multichannel Music is now accepting proposals. The festival will take place at Virginia Tech on August 6 & 7, 2016. This festival will focus on music for high-density loudspeaker arrays (HDLA), with 24 or more channels. All proposals sent in a format that allows for multi

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

My 2 cents: Honestly, I *really* wouldn’t bother with maintaining ppc support anymore. 10.5 was released in Oct of 2007, that’s 6 versions ago and 99.9% of people running OSX are not running ppc. I understand the desire to support it, but those people can use older versions of Pd. Without going

Re: [PD] standalone

hi list even with all those "emaculate" GUI's out there to control pd with (and i bet, its still with a mouse by far of us, anyways), we are still stuck with "HOW", instead of asking "WHY"... knobs'n'buttons'n'faders, thats it? my shorthaired 5 cents cheers

Re: [PD] Purpose of Cyclone (was: Cyclone features or Cyclone updates)

Hi Alexandre, But anyway, I'm confused as to what is your idea behind it, or the general idea in the community of cyclone users. Let us talk about it then. This also touches the issue with [average~], as there was a resistance to make it a proper clone of the Max object as a priority. You were

[PD] [PD-announce] Pure Data Berlin meeting this week

PD Berlin meetings are from now at c-base (Rungestrasse 20 Berlin) every first and third thursday in the month beginning 20:00, the next one is thursday, the 17.December. This time we want to explore midi and OSC programming with PD and jam a bit. Looking forward to it and thanks c-base for hostin

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

On 2015-12-15 11:07, katja wrote: > This looks good, thanks for proving me wrong. Which OSX version is > this? I've had troubles with denormals in fat binaries in the past > (OSX 10.5). It turned out that the preprocessor didn't pass > architecture defines when preprocessing for multiple architectu

Re: [PD] standalone

On 14/12/2015 18:03, Py Fave wrote: does someone know examples of doing that , with osc or socket? I'm not sure if this could be of any interest. https://bitbucket.org/lorenzosu/a2r_gtk_client_fork I left the project at the beginning of 2013 and therefore didn't work on this any more, so n

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:56 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2015-12-13 23:16, katja wrote: >> iven to both compiler and linker: >> >> -arch i386 -arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.5 >> >> One thing I noticed when building fat binaries: gcc doesn't define >> __i386__ or __x86_64__ which

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

On 2015-12-13 23:16, katja wrote: >> The second thing would complicate loading of externs since I don't know how >> to make a fat binary with two different alternative code sections that are >> chosen according to the directions of the loading program - at the moment >> loading is on the basis of a

Re: [PD] fat binaries or not, on OSX (was: 'Pd 64 bits' for OSX is i386 + ppc)

On 2015-12-13 23:16, katja wrote: > iven to both compiler and linker: > > -arch i386 -arch x86_64 -mmacosx-version-min=10.5 > > One thing I noticed when building fat binaries: gcc doesn't define > __i386__ or __x86_64__ which we use to conditionally compile bithacks. ?are you sure? $ cc --v