[PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

>> in build/mtx_0x2a.c the wrong setup-function is defined.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, thanks... it was a long day.  Did you get the other bug report?   
> That one is a bug in the patch... really!  ;)

yes, i  know though i haven't made any steps to commit a fixed patch yet...

> 
> I have a question, why did you reverse the order of the original  
> stantard setup function?
> 
> i.e. original = mtx_+_setup()    altname =  setup_mtx_0x2a()
> 
> I think that just makes things confusing and causes bugs, well, like  
> the one we just talked about.

yes it is confusing but:
i want to have a different setup-function for the alternative names; 
otherwise it would forbid to make an object that is really called 
"mtx_0x2a". on 2nd thought, this is _almost_ impossible now too, because 
it is hard (though possible) to have 2 mtx_0x2a.pd_linux lying around 
(one for the [mtx_*] and one for [mtx_0x2a])

what is more important is, that you cannot start function names with 
numbers (at least in C)
so the [<<<] object (which would expand to "0x3c0x3c0x3c") cannot have a 
valid setup-function "0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup()"; however 
"setup_0x3c0x3c0x3c()" is fine.

so i really think, that there should be 2 separate names (if we agree, 
that it would be a bad idea to rename the standard setupfun-name to 
setup_***()

mfg.a.r
IOhannes