I believe the new feature C++11 namespace before it was finalized to std:: was something like tr1::. You could check the C++ version and set/typdef the namespace as required. Look in the OpenFrameworks ofConstants.h header. > On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:49 PM, Alex <x37v.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > using my cmake setup in the jit_expr project I was able to build just now for > 10.9 but no lower, going below 10.9 didn't allow it to find the > std::shared_ptr > maybe I can get lower somehow? Either way, this should be more useful for > more people :) > > Thanks for the info Dan! > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com > <mailto:danomat...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Also, if you're targeting C++11, I think you'll have to use a min of at least > 10.7 (from > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7482026/can-i-use-the-latest-features-of-c11-in-xcode-4-or-osx-lion > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7482026/can-i-use-the-latest-features-of-c11-in-xcode-4-or-osx-lion>). > > One thing we've noticed is that Pd builds on my machine running 10.13 don't > seems to work on 10.6-10.7 systems, so the deployment target is really a > suggestion at best. You'll have to do some testing but it's hard to hit > *everyone* and honestly the vast majority of users fall within the newest to > maybe 3 versions before anyway (ie. 10.10 - 10.13 now). > > For plain C/C++, you can have a relatively old deployment target. It's really > more important for macOS app development using the Apple frameworks ie. stuff > like the changes from QT to AVFoundation, etc. > > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com >> <mailto:danomat...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The compiler builds for the current system by default. You have to set the >> min deployment target when building. >> >> Add this flag to you makefile: --mmacosx-version-min=10.6 >> >> The current version for Pd is 10.6 which is the first version that supported >> i386 (ie. Intel processors). >> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 12:00 PM, pd-dev-requ...@lists.iem.at >>> <mailto:pd-dev-requ...@lists.iem.at> wrote: >>> >>> From: Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu <mailto:m...@ucsd.edu>> >>> To: Alex <x37v.a...@gmail.com <mailto:x37v.a...@gmail.com>> >>> Cc: pd-dev <pd-dev@lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-dev@lists.iem.at>> >>> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Mac SDK version for externals >>> Message-ID: <20180319015755.GY7620@elroy.localdomain >>> <mailto:20180319015755.GY7620@elroy.localdomain>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>> >>> This is a very interesting and useful question. >>> >>> At the outset of PD I only worried about having it run on the "current" >>> platforms: Redhat 5.2, Windows 95, and when it arrived, MacOS 10.2. Older >>> platforms weren't important. >>> >>> Since then I've tried to keep back compatibility to whatever those >>> bleeding-edge >>> OSes were, because I assume people can't always afford machine upgrades. >>> But >>> I haven't tried to extend Pd (Or "extra" objects) backward past the original >>> dates. >>> >>> At the moment I can only compile back to OSX 10.5 (PPC) and Windows XP; I >>> don't have real or virtual machines that go back further. >>> >>> So my suggestion would be: make it work on today's OSes, and try to keep it >>> alive on them, but don't worry too hard about older ones. I don't think I'm >>> ever going to be tempted to compile Pd for Windows 3.1. >>> >>> cheers >>> Miller >> >> -------- >> Dan Wilcox >> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> >> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> >> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> >> >> >> > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > > > >
-------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@lists.iem.at https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
