Am 9. Oktober 2024 15:44:33 MESZ schrieb Miller Puckette <mpucke...@cloud.ucsd.edu>: >I heard from an ESPD tester that compiling ESPD sometimes fails because (for >some reason) HAVE_CONFIG_H is defined by the complicated ESP compile chain but >there's no "config.h" in the Pd sources so this fails: > >#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H >/* autotools might put all the HAVE_... defines into "config.h" */ ># include "config.h" >#endif > >It seems a bit fragile anyway... is there a way to make the test more >stringent? Perhaps require that some other symbol be defined by hand before >pulling in "config.h", and/or having some way to specify what directory to >look for config.h in?
This is really the standard way to include a `config.h` file. Zillions of project all over the world use this pattern, I don't think we should invent our own method. Apart from that: "the complicated ESP compile chain" really must define `HAVE_CONFIG_H` **only** if it does "have config.h". So since the behaviour of this define is so well defined, I doubt that this cannot be handled properly for the esp. > >In the meantime I already have to patch the Pd sources slightly to get ESPD to >compile so I can work around this if I have to. > I would really love it if the pd could be built for esp without having to patch anything mfg.sfg.jfd IOhannes --- pd-dev@lists.iem.at - the Pd developers' mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/pd-dev@lists.iem.at/message/FE32AD2ZTX6LM7CAUDHN7TJRB4EPGCJ3/
