On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:46 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2011-10-31 15:39, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> >> On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:59 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 2011-10-30 20:03, Roman Haefeli wrote: >>>> >>>> Building iemnet on the Windows build machine still failed: >>>> http://autobuild.puredata.info/auto-build/2011-10-30/logs/2011-10-30_03.31.00_mingw32_nt-5.1_windowsxp-i386_pd-extended.txt >>> >>> seems like the template/Makefile assumes that the "shared code" doesn't >>> know anything about Pd. >>> >>> i'd like to hear hans' opinion about this (e.g. why) >> >> Hmm, probably purely because the shared library is not linking against >> pd.dll. Perhaps there are issues with that many circular links in Windows. >> I know that Windows linking is testy, that's why there is a pd.exe which >> links to a pd.dll. Try linking the shared library to pd and see if it works. >> > > what i meant is, that the PD_INCLUDES do not get propagated to the > SHARED_CFLAGS, hence the compiler cannot find headers like m_pd.h; > once that is done, we will get to the linker problems. > > but all there problems are solved for the external itself, so i wondered > whether there is a reason to not apply those flags to the shared code.
I don't know either way, I haven't tried it. The shared code I was working with was very plain C. So you're the first to try it. We'll see how it goes. I am not opposed to including the possibility of the shared code linking to Pd if it doesn't break other things. .hc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. - from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
