Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Good point. I wasn't involved when Peter first started the project and I'm sure, back then, multiple PD instances seemed waaay off into the future. That's not actually what I was thinking when I was putting together the API of libpd. My goal was simply to create the thinnest possible wrapper in C that would make Pd embeddable, and then to add the thinnest possible Java bindings that would make the C API available to Android devices. The latter, with all the static methods in PdBase.java, drew some criticism from some Java people, but I still believe that minimality is the way to go for a library like this. I also figured that support for multiple instances, if it ever happened, would be an excellent excuse to start over and create a new API that would be informed by the mistakes of the original API. I have little faith in up-front design that tries to imagine what might happen in the future, but I do believe in Brooks's admonition that you need to be prepared to throw the initial version away. As it happens, the original API has held up rather nicely, and I would change relatively little if I were to start over right now. One minor regret is that the libpd API has a few function names that don't include verbs, a vestige of the initial rush to get stuff to work. A bigger concern is that in virtually all use cases, it's good to have lock-free ring buffers between the messaging functions and the audio processing callback, for both input and output. We've been retrofitting ring buffers as needed and that worked out okay, but it probably would have been cleaner to have them in the core library. Cheers, Peter ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2014-02-23 20:46, Dan Wilcox wrote: Any further updates on this front? If a consensus is made, we could outline a roadmap and move to the task of implementation. At this point, I think breaking externals would be less of an issue if said breakage would be manageable via about find/replace. I'd be willing to handle that, at the least. i was going to ask something along these lines as well, but more libpd specific: when i (last) looked into the libpd API, i noticed that libpd works on a global namespace as well...what i mean is, that the API (at least the C-API, i haven't checked the others) does not allow to specify an instance of pd. the current API looks like: snip void libpd_init(void); int libpd_process_float(int ticks, const float *in, float *out); // ... /snip obviously with this API it will *never* be possible to initialize multiple instances of libpd. so i would have expected something along: snip typedef struct libpd_ libpd_t; libpd_t*libpd_init(void); int libpd_process_float(libpd_t*instance, int ticks, ...); // ... libpd_deinit(libpd_t*instance); /snip now obviously we *currently* cannot have multiple instances of pd (afaiu, that's what dan's question is about). but i fail to see why libpd doesn't provide the API for this, even if the instance pointer would not be used (until Pd does support multiple instances). e.g. the application programmer would have to check that libpd_init() returns non-NULL anyhow, and in the current implementation it would always return NULL but the first time being called. this would have allowed for a transition to multiple instances without having to change the API... ghsdft IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTCwfjAAoJELZQGcR/ejb4uDsQAIrdZNgHX4zFytnGCjeG/PkB UVbyXLy6EJwLNd15sFcO1u9VG6LWWC3LB7pSmw5DDoGhpnVcr4vCtNtRNX1hLFqy n8WAI8IKyzioQlno1ed29Cjb9T0n2IKHZryHqPTobukURKmAWh4ZwQxGe7yM8AbM 6e+KyZb3JZHb7IVbf6DqqnPlb9hlLz7TP7f5SgDzY0TJGAbmSsfLha1SVoblZjY5 VzEQ3jl3rhblmWVmEFmHDR+LIBCJkKwGmPG0r3N8dbhvMFMFWVFtZCEKujbStvzz cKvzjtgwtEL6n3kcw2eRHttCpZOnGsd/RW59r/68Pa+a2UvOhKdff0MELUSqm2Iu rOjwl58mBtkXdtrqlgNPu2ZmdSNmwaw8OJizz2ttlX+r1CiBQPhEAzmRDYdtMN4V QTDad5wKCW4l/eaSTX4+z/Dn3qZJ9X6CmQjc+fX2OgrTnWPe1P1Q0FpZ4ZuVHbGB DYdFD5dJp/DU2OygQg6MO4h25VfalQ++MAujC5EPUxKkXZjOAsS8Nt29EFgC7mCc QLeB/zlGbRNI7iRfrHI6zWANuPIvLuomHmhnc1UhkLZNPxFJ+GVkEfK+nyWq+rEG n7751NYxGOdI5D8X3CZHuVOmmlRAqBceaEkH0gtJumr/o2k/GvN8kWjKQFSCncuc /phnie1+8fSV7MlZ1rVr =wrR6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2013-12-11 20:38, Rob Bairos wrote: Sorry, Im pretty new to this code, whats an extern in pdlib? the same as in proper Pd: an external aka plugin that is, a pre-compiled object loaded on-demand at runtime. Does it make more sense for the instance structure to be a set of structures? if we go that route, i'd suggest to use a structure of pointers to structures (so the separate structures can be more easily extended without breaking binary incompatibility). fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSqXiCAAoJELZQGcR/ejb4LBgP/1wayhKsCdBOX8in1tklqISK gNR8ChKtsJX5Zju2oqBI7BL5VfIg1NdciWO1hAUhM4HLWG4Wd1/8oICFez+Nggu9 zmYa/lxxIk6XDuKtVCCRfCPYu3WTKbujwd1c7GVcnM2RSNInwwRuHn5wXhsi5HuC 60GtX086gPDwMtLNB3D8YjJxhhgnydP4SV4OUfxVW7USOpwsxQIPzPGInX7ukEE5 Tet+LCYKv27ojbZshJ5jYOp+zaK1vl7gx1Tu7NSGZbpo0pk1tQrXWy+KUlrvgRGL zA/YUe280NWhf8JPBh9VMDCSXpRfU2LJkrrXIWStl/dphX0jj88nSjPu4qpuzFtJ fAY13Noatjy357IvTh5i8YxZhX/Ryp5iuem0O/dzJJelD6KQQ97qYNXTTitcSWd8 bq3nyFoswi8KLt1svil/Ukd9/BAF1jNuNxGGKbpnMfkist+S616kvLd4Luo1exvd NLo86trvie3SMsnTH9itGFOBP9DwKCp3FvNwo/50kS8ubZSbXjmwPjnAGSoD9fNA scZElHJxlXISUA/ah4XTv+0RtPNjjyJhvsMjm18fzdjinziyizYw7n0SLlelCy1U sqsbWlXQYKVS4HG2H5qM6QFZgb9ov+B/z5NVkcyn85C5LXIgL6BrTVk/anWQrbeD P4d0RlArbWhCqWDrOLnn =UyCi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
+1 to localizing the symbol table and dsp chain, that would be a huge step forward towards being able to use pd as a 'plugin''. What other things would be global other than search path? Audio and midi settings? cheers, Rich On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoel...@iem.atwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2013-12-11 20:38, Rob Bairos wrote: Sorry, Im pretty new to this code, whats an extern in pdlib? the same as in proper Pd: an external aka plugin that is, a pre-compiled object loaded on-demand at runtime. Does it make more sense for the instance structure to be a set of structures? if we go that route, i'd suggest to use a structure of pointers to structures (so the separate structures can be more easily extended without breaking binary incompatibility). fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSqXiCAAoJELZQGcR/ejb4LBgP/1wayhKsCdBOX8in1tklqISK gNR8ChKtsJX5Zju2oqBI7BL5VfIg1NdciWO1hAUhM4HLWG4Wd1/8oICFez+Nggu9 zmYa/lxxIk6XDuKtVCCRfCPYu3WTKbujwd1c7GVcnM2RSNInwwRuHn5wXhsi5HuC 60GtX086gPDwMtLNB3D8YjJxhhgnydP4SV4OUfxVW7USOpwsxQIPzPGInX7ukEE5 Tet+LCYKv27ojbZshJ5jYOp+zaK1vl7gx1Tu7NSGZbpo0pk1tQrXWy+KUlrvgRGL zA/YUe280NWhf8JPBh9VMDCSXpRfU2LJkrrXIWStl/dphX0jj88nSjPu4qpuzFtJ fAY13Noatjy357IvTh5i8YxZhX/Ryp5iuem0O/dzJJelD6KQQ97qYNXTTitcSWd8 bq3nyFoswi8KLt1svil/Ukd9/BAF1jNuNxGGKbpnMfkist+S616kvLd4Luo1exvd NLo86trvie3SMsnTH9itGFOBP9DwKCp3FvNwo/50kS8ubZSbXjmwPjnAGSoD9fNA scZElHJxlXISUA/ah4XTv+0RtPNjjyJhvsMjm18fzdjinziyizYw7n0SLlelCy1U sqsbWlXQYKVS4HG2H5qM6QFZgb9ov+B/z5NVkcyn85C5LXIgL6BrTVk/anWQrbeD P4d0RlArbWhCqWDrOLnn =UyCi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
why would you make audio settings global? in our particular setup each 'plugin / node' etc has an arbitrary number of inputs/outputs/sample rate. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Rich E reakina...@gmail.com wrote: +1 to localizing the symbol table and dsp chain, that would be a huge step forward towards being able to use pd as a 'plugin''. What other things would be global other than search path? Audio and midi settings? cheers, Rich On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoel...@iem.atwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2013-12-11 20:38, Rob Bairos wrote: Sorry, Im pretty new to this code, whats an extern in pdlib? the same as in proper Pd: an external aka plugin that is, a pre-compiled object loaded on-demand at runtime. Does it make more sense for the instance structure to be a set of structures? if we go that route, i'd suggest to use a structure of pointers to structures (so the separate structures can be more easily extended without breaking binary incompatibility). fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSqXiCAAoJELZQGcR/ejb4LBgP/1wayhKsCdBOX8in1tklqISK gNR8ChKtsJX5Zju2oqBI7BL5VfIg1NdciWO1hAUhM4HLWG4Wd1/8oICFez+Nggu9 zmYa/lxxIk6XDuKtVCCRfCPYu3WTKbujwd1c7GVcnM2RSNInwwRuHn5wXhsi5HuC 60GtX086gPDwMtLNB3D8YjJxhhgnydP4SV4OUfxVW7USOpwsxQIPzPGInX7ukEE5 Tet+LCYKv27ojbZshJ5jYOp+zaK1vl7gx1Tu7NSGZbpo0pk1tQrXWy+KUlrvgRGL zA/YUe280NWhf8JPBh9VMDCSXpRfU2LJkrrXIWStl/dphX0jj88nSjPu4qpuzFtJ fAY13Noatjy357IvTh5i8YxZhX/Ryp5iuem0O/dzJJelD6KQQ97qYNXTTitcSWd8 bq3nyFoswi8KLt1svil/Ukd9/BAF1jNuNxGGKbpnMfkist+S616kvLd4Luo1exvd NLo86trvie3SMsnTH9itGFOBP9DwKCp3FvNwo/50kS8ubZSbXjmwPjnAGSoD9fNA scZElHJxlXISUA/ah4XTv+0RtPNjjyJhvsMjm18fzdjinziyizYw7n0SLlelCy1U sqsbWlXQYKVS4HG2H5qM6QFZgb9ov+B/z5NVkcyn85C5LXIgL6BrTVk/anWQrbeD P4d0RlArbWhCqWDrOLnn =UyCi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Rob Bairos r...@derivative.ca wrote: why would you make audio settings global? in our particular setup each 'plugin / node' etc has an arbitrary number of inputs/outputs/sample rate. I wouldn't, but I think they might already be. I was asking what other vars would remain global in Miller's proposed solution, giving audio setttings as an example of something that you'd probably want to also be local. I don't know if there are others. ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Oh, but for sending messages between instances, you would have to queue the messages, and then it starts to get complicated.. I think sticking to independent instances with no shared arrays/etc would be a great first step. The idea of throwing all statis/externs into a data structure wouldn't extend to externs, which would be ugly since it would mean the API for internal objects would have to be different than for externs (which would have to make their own data structures, per-Pd-instance, and would have to have some way to look those up from the Pd instance. Sorry, Im pretty new to this code, whats an extern in pdlib? Also, the idea of having a data structure that you have to change to add anthing static to anything at all inside Pd sounds quite heavy to me. Well if the engine requires a static variable, it should be treated properly, whether thats implementing it as a global instance structure or some other mechanism, different than simply declaring it static. I'm liking the idea of simply localizing symbols and the DSP chain more and more as I think about it... it's nice and self-contained and I think it would help things a lot from what I'm hearing. Well the first pass would definitely involve avoiding the need for a variable to be static in the first place. My brief skimming indicated that fit quite a few of them. Does it make more sense for the instance structure to be a set of structures? On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Kjetil Matheussen k.s.matheus...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Kjetil Matheussen k.s.matheus...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote: I'm liking the idea of simply localizing symbols and the DSP chain more and more as I think about it... it's nice and self-contained and I think it would help things a lot from what I'm hearing. Perhaps I misunderstand what you talk about, but for Radium, I think a shared symbol table could be better. Then you can share arrays and other things between instances. (And patch specific symbol names should be injected with $0 anyway.) Oh, but for sending messages between instances, you would have to queue the messages, and then it starts to get complicated... ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Sorry for the delay.
#1 I agree. Seems like a workaround. Ultimately it should be clear in the
source code when a static is meant to be shared across threads or not.
Seems like something that could be properly implemented in the future?
#2 Sounds good, but Im not familiar with which variables are symbol table
related, DSP chain related, etc.
Im of the mind, Id just like to put them *all* into one structure, to
get a stable release, and then individual variables can be pulled back out
in future as the need arises.
Id be inclined to throw everything into one structure, and name things
according to which file they originated in:
example, firstnet in d_fftroutine.c would live as an entry
struct PDinstance {
...
FFT_NET *d_fftroutine_firstnet;
...
}
This would allow one to at least see where the variable is used.
#3 Peter mentions that in order to support legacy code, all API calls
would need to be mirrored, with and without the pd-instance variable.
I don't think C allows for overloading, so would this require a separate
name for all the functions?
Would supporting two parallel APIs be wanted though, or just lead to
confusion?
Is this in order to support previously compiled objects (Dlls)?
-Rob
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Kjetil Matheussen
k.s.matheus...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Miller,
Idea #1 sounds quite good, except that it sounds hacky
and that performance might go down notifiable because
of thread switching. The extra amount of code necessary
to switch threads doesn't sound like too much work.
So I like idea #2 much better. The limitation of only one
DSP chain was the only good reason for implementing
multiple pd instances for Radium. If you implement #2,
that's probably good enough for Radium, and most likely
good enough for most others too. At least, it's a very
good start.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Hi all -
two idea, neither of them as general but perhaps much easier to pull off:
1. make macros like:
#define STATIC static __thread
and rely on gcc's per-thread static storage mechanism. This would
involve
some global search-and-replace action but wouldn't clutter the code too
badly.
The downside is it would require that each instance of libpd would have
to
run in its own thread - As Peter pointed out to me, in many situations
the
programmer can't even determine at compile time whether this would be
true
or not.
I'm not sure but I think other C compilers besides gcc might support
__thread
these days.
2. Just make the symbol table and DSP chain per-instance, and leave
the rest
alone. This only solves a subset of the problem (things like the search
path
would remain global) but my intuition has it that fixing these two would
be
enough so that people could practically make patches that don't interfere
with each other. (Making the symbol table per-instance would keep things
like arrays, send/receives, etc., from cross-talking.)
The result wouldn't be thread-safe; however, combining this with the
__thread idea from above would probably work, and then you'd have
something
that would at least work (although perhaps slightly differently) in
same-thread and multi-thread contexts.
These are just ideas - if there's enough interest I can pull (2) off
quite
easily; (1) would be a global search-and-replace mess that would likely
conflict with every source-code patch out there (e.g., all the patches
that
are applied for Pd extended) so I'd need a real good reason to inflict
that
one on the world.
cheers
Miller
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 10:12:03AM +0100, Kjetil Matheussen wrote:
Excellent plan.
In my branch of libpd on Github, I've solved the Pd multiple
instances problem by letting the linker take care of separating
the global variables. However, using the linker causing various
problems, such as making it very difficult to load externals,
and it should probably also be considered a hack.
Your plan (the plan I didn't bother doing in my branch) is quite
undoubtedly the proper way to do it, and hopefully I would have time to
help. At least I would be helping to debug it afterwards,
because I would start using this system (in the Radium music editor),
instead of my own, to embed Pd instances.
And an advantage to Pd itself might be that the source could be clearer
when
variables that belongs to the instance, actually are denoted as such
in the text.
There is also quite microscopic concern, which is that the added
amount of text could make the source more difficult to read,
here and there. Maybe a very short variable name for the pd instance,
such as p, pi', would be a good idea. (i.e. not
pure_data_instance).
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Rob Bairos r...@derivative.ca wrote:
Sorry, most of my original post got cut off.
Here's the rest (minus the list of symbols) in case
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Well, I think #1 (making statics per-thread) is only necessary on the
assumtion that you want Pd running simultaneously in multiple threads;
otherwise it would accomplish nothing. I'm not sure but I guess the overhead
would be the same as the one-structure solution (which is essentially how,
I think, the per-thread thing would have to work internally anyhow.)
The idea of throwing all statis/externs into a data structure wouldn't
extend to externs, which would be ugly since it would mean the API for
internal objects would have to be different than for externs (which would
have to make their own data structures, per-Pd-instance, and would have to
have some way to look those up from the Pd instance. Also, the idea of
having a data structure that you have to change to add anthing static to
anything at all inside Pd sounds quite heavy to me.
I'm liking the idea of simply localizing symbols and the DSP chain more
and more as I think about it... it's nice and self-contained and I think it
would help things a lot from what I'm hearing.
cheers
Miller
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:07:08PM -0500, Rob Bairos wrote:
Sorry for the delay.
#1 I agree. Seems like a workaround. Ultimately it should be clear in the
source code when a static is meant to be shared across threads or not.
Seems like something that could be properly implemented in the future?
#2 Sounds good, but Im not familiar with which variables are symbol table
related, DSP chain related, etc.
Im of the mind, Id just like to put them *all* into one structure, to
get a stable release, and then individual variables can be pulled back out
in future as the need arises.
Id be inclined to throw everything into one structure, and name things
according to which file they originated in:
example, firstnet in d_fftroutine.c would live as an entry
struct PDinstance {
...
FFT_NET *d_fftroutine_firstnet;
...
}
This would allow one to at least see where the variable is used.
#3 Peter mentions that in order to support legacy code, all API calls
would need to be mirrored, with and without the pd-instance variable.
I don't think C allows for overloading, so would this require a separate
name for all the functions?
Would supporting two parallel APIs be wanted though, or just lead to
confusion?
Is this in order to support previously compiled objects (Dlls)?
-Rob
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Kjetil Matheussen
k.s.matheus...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Miller,
Idea #1 sounds quite good, except that it sounds hacky
and that performance might go down notifiable because
of thread switching. The extra amount of code necessary
to switch threads doesn't sound like too much work.
So I like idea #2 much better. The limitation of only one
DSP chain was the only good reason for implementing
multiple pd instances for Radium. If you implement #2,
that's probably good enough for Radium, and most likely
good enough for most others too. At least, it's a very
good start.
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Hi all -
two idea, neither of them as general but perhaps much easier to pull off:
1. make macros like:
#define STATIC static __thread
and rely on gcc's per-thread static storage mechanism. This would
involve
some global search-and-replace action but wouldn't clutter the code too
badly.
The downside is it would require that each instance of libpd would have
to
run in its own thread - As Peter pointed out to me, in many situations
the
programmer can't even determine at compile time whether this would be
true
or not.
I'm not sure but I think other C compilers besides gcc might support
__thread
these days.
2. Just make the symbol table and DSP chain per-instance, and leave
the rest
alone. This only solves a subset of the problem (things like the search
path
would remain global) but my intuition has it that fixing these two would
be
enough so that people could practically make patches that don't interfere
with each other. (Making the symbol table per-instance would keep things
like arrays, send/receives, etc., from cross-talking.)
The result wouldn't be thread-safe; however, combining this with the
__thread idea from above would probably work, and then you'd have
something
that would at least work (although perhaps slightly differently) in
same-thread and multi-thread contexts.
These are just ideas - if there's enough interest I can pull (2) off
quite
easily; (1) would be a global search-and-replace mess that would likely
conflict with every source-code patch out there (e.g., all the patches
that
are applied for Pd extended) so I'd need a real good reason to inflict
that
one on the world.
cheers
Miller
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 10:12:03AM +0100, Kjetil Matheussen wrote:
Excellent plan.
In my branch of
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote: I'm liking the idea of simply localizing symbols and the DSP chain more and more as I think about it... it's nice and self-contained and I think it would help things a lot from what I'm hearing. Perhaps I misunderstand what you talk about, but for Radium, I think a shared symbol table could be better. Then you can share arrays and other things between instances. (And patch specific symbol names should be injected with $0 anyway.) ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Kjetil Matheussen k.s.matheus...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote: I'm liking the idea of simply localizing symbols and the DSP chain more and more as I think about it... it's nice and self-contained and I think it would help things a lot from what I'm hearing. Perhaps I misunderstand what you talk about, but for Radium, I think a shared symbol table could be better. Then you can share arrays and other things between instances. (And patch specific symbol names should be injected with $0 anyway.) Oh, but for sending messages between instances, you would have to queue the messages, and then it starts to get complicated... ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Hi Miller, Idea #1 sounds quite good, except that it sounds hacky and that performance might go down notifiable because of thread switching. The extra amount of code necessary to switch threads doesn't sound like too much work. So I like idea #2 much better. The limitation of only one DSP chain was the only good reason for implementing multiple pd instances for Radium. If you implement #2, that's probably good enough for Radium, and most likely good enough for most others too. At least, it's a very good start. On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Miller Puckette m...@ucsd.edu wrote: Hi all - two idea, neither of them as general but perhaps much easier to pull off: 1. make macros like: #define STATIC static __thread and rely on gcc's per-thread static storage mechanism. This would involve some global search-and-replace action but wouldn't clutter the code too badly. The downside is it would require that each instance of libpd would have to run in its own thread - As Peter pointed out to me, in many situations the programmer can't even determine at compile time whether this would be true or not. I'm not sure but I think other C compilers besides gcc might support __thread these days. 2. Just make the symbol table and DSP chain per-instance, and leave the rest alone. This only solves a subset of the problem (things like the search path would remain global) but my intuition has it that fixing these two would be enough so that people could practically make patches that don't interfere with each other. (Making the symbol table per-instance would keep things like arrays, send/receives, etc., from cross-talking.) The result wouldn't be thread-safe; however, combining this with the __thread idea from above would probably work, and then you'd have something that would at least work (although perhaps slightly differently) in same-thread and multi-thread contexts. These are just ideas - if there's enough interest I can pull (2) off quite easily; (1) would be a global search-and-replace mess that would likely conflict with every source-code patch out there (e.g., all the patches that are applied for Pd extended) so I'd need a real good reason to inflict that one on the world. cheers Miller On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 10:12:03AM +0100, Kjetil Matheussen wrote: Excellent plan. In my branch of libpd on Github, I've solved the Pd multiple instances problem by letting the linker take care of separating the global variables. However, using the linker causing various problems, such as making it very difficult to load externals, and it should probably also be considered a hack. Your plan (the plan I didn't bother doing in my branch) is quite undoubtedly the proper way to do it, and hopefully I would have time to help. At least I would be helping to debug it afterwards, because I would start using this system (in the Radium music editor), instead of my own, to embed Pd instances. And an advantage to Pd itself might be that the source could be clearer when variables that belongs to the instance, actually are denoted as such in the text. There is also quite microscopic concern, which is that the added amount of text could make the source more difficult to read, here and there. Maybe a very short variable name for the pd instance, such as p, pi', would be a good idea. (i.e. not pure_data_instance). On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Rob Bairos r...@derivative.ca wrote: Sorry, most of my original post got cut off. Here's the rest (minus the list of symbols) in case its causing a problem: From my understanding, the current proposed solution is to take all statics and globals, encapsulate them in one object, and pass that object to all api calls. Peter further suggested legacy api is maintained by having them call the new api with a default instance object. I did a little bit of hunting, using objdump on the current dll, to get a rough list of all the globals and statics currently involved. Im thinking the *_class and *_sym static pointers are in fact constant, and need only one shared instance. That would leave about 320 variables remaining. Many of these variables are constant arrays, strings, etc. And many seem to be used only as a shortcut for passing data between two functions, possibly bringing down the number further. Im toying with the idea of taking on this task if anyone's interested. I may require some tips and help from the forum, in terms of creating a branch, explanation of some statics etc. So how feasible is this? Am I on the right track? Thanks very much, Rob Bairos. ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list
Re: [PD-dev] Multiple Instance of pdlib
Excellent plan. In my branch of libpd on Github, I've solved the Pd multiple instances problem by letting the linker take care of separating the global variables. However, using the linker causing various problems, such as making it very difficult to load externals, and it should probably also be considered a hack. Your plan (the plan I didn't bother doing in my branch) is quite undoubtedly the proper way to do it, and hopefully I would have time to help. At least I would be helping to debug it afterwards, because I would start using this system (in the Radium music editor), instead of my own, to embed Pd instances. And an advantage to Pd itself might be that the source could be clearer when variables that belongs to the instance, actually are denoted as such in the text. There is also quite microscopic concern, which is that the added amount of text could make the source more difficult to read, here and there. Maybe a very short variable name for the pd instance, such as p, pi', would be a good idea. (i.e. not pure_data_instance). On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Rob Bairos r...@derivative.ca wrote: Sorry, most of my original post got cut off. Here's the rest (minus the list of symbols) in case its causing a problem: From my understanding, the current proposed solution is to take all statics and globals, encapsulate them in one object, and pass that object to all api calls. Peter further suggested legacy api is maintained by having them call the new api with a default instance object. I did a little bit of hunting, using objdump on the current dll, to get a rough list of all the globals and statics currently involved. Im thinking the *_class and *_sym static pointers are in fact constant, and need only one shared instance. That would leave about 320 variables remaining. Many of these variables are constant arrays, strings, etc. And many seem to be used only as a shortcut for passing data between two functions, possibly bringing down the number further. Im toying with the idea of taking on this task if anyone's interested. I may require some tips and help from the forum, in terms of creating a branch, explanation of some statics etc. So how feasible is this? Am I on the right track? Thanks very much, Rob Bairos. ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev ___ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
